Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Outright Ban on Hunting

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know poison is terrible and don't advocate it. I'd still prefer it over being torn apart alive though.

    But like you have said, shooting is by far the most humane method, and one most people actually won't object to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't the laws against cruelty to animals apply to a "hunt" when an animal is ripped apart by dogs? Oh, silly me. Laws don't apply to rich people.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    Laws don't apply to rich people.

    Thsi is what pisses me off about anti hunt protestors. Money or class should have fuck all to do with it - surley it is about the welfare of the fox and nothing else.

    Many of those whose livelyhoods depend upon these hunts are not rich, and they will lose their jobs. Turning this into a argument about class and money makes you look stupid!
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    I know poison is terrible and don't advocate it. I'd still prefer it over being torn apart alive though.

    But like you have said, shooting is by far the most humane method, and one most people actually won't object to.
    Poison isn't a suitable alternative as it often ends up killing the farmer's livestock, which defeats the whole purpose.

    Shooting does work, but not in the same volume. It would be very costly to the farmer to have to shoot every fox that would be killed if a hunt were allowed through.
    There is also the psychological aspect to consider. Foxes don't recognise the inherent danger of a farmer with a gun. They do recognise the commotion caused by a hunt coming through. They associate it with a pack of dogs and imminent death, if they do not leave. Not only does a hunt kill foxes, it also acts as a deterent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    i really don't think that's a very good reason to oppose something. in my opinion, it's irrelevent as to whether it's a social occasion or not.

    Hunting an animal for fun, as a "day out" is acceptable?

    I think not. It just make the whole spectacle offensive.

    Like I said, prove that it is the most effective was to control this "pest" and I would support it. Unfortunately that isn't the case.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Hunting an animal for fun, as a "day out" is acceptable?

    I think not. It just make the whole spectacle offensive.

    Hunting is fun though!

    People go shooting and fishing all the time for fun. Almost every saturday over the winter months I go beating and shooting and it is a 'day out' ...and it's fun. Does that offend you?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    thankyou you just proved me right.
    you don't give a diddly squat about the fox ...it can die by all means, kill the fucker if thats what you want .......the problem isn't the fox hunting at all for people like you. the problem is that people actualy enjoy it.

    Yes, it is mostly the perverted pleasure taken out of tearing an animal to shreds which puts me against fox hunting. Also the fact that if the fox manages to get away it will, as Aladdin has shown, lead to a slow and torturous death shows it to be an ineffective method of pest control.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Skive
    Sorry who's being selfish.

    You're protesting about how cruel fox hunting bu at the same time you want to destry it's natural habitat, along with thousands of other animals.

    Fuck the fox, maybe we should be more worried about controling the human propulation first - therefore avoiding any need for any of this concrete country you suggest! You're fucking mad!!! :eek2:

    I happen to believe I live in one of the most gorgeous places in the country - I enjoy shooting and fishing on a regular bassis, and I've worked on farms and golf course since I was a nipper. I appreciate where I live and I want to keep it that way.

    You and your fellow NIMBYs are the selfish ones mate. Yes I believe we should put human beings above animals and I make no apologies for that but that is no excuse to treat the animals we do have in a shoddy manner. Controlling the human population is a good idea but nonetheless the fact remains that the country needs to expand, for economic development and to improve our quality of life as a nation. If it's mad to believe that everyone should be entitled to reasonably sized, affordable homes, that we should improve our transportation system to continue our economic development, that we should encourage building to boost our economy then mad I am. Looked at by an objective voice however, it is you countryside people who are mad.

    See the opposition to this comes from you selfish countryside people, as you admit you want to keep your beneficial existance for the few and keep millions of people in the cities in cramped and unaffordable accommodation. It is selfishness in the extreme on your part, you value your nice views over the lives of millions of Britons - that says it all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    i have been to the city of london actually, and hate it. for a couple of hours it's ok to wander round london, but any more than that and my skin and hair can't breathe, there are far too many rude people, far too much noise, far too much litter. it is not a pleasant place. i don't want to live in a place like that, and i don't see why i should. also i don't know if this has escaped your attention or not, but people like going to the countryside. farmers need it to grow your food. it's a bit more sophisticated than me being selfish and not wanting to give up my trees my dear.


    Look at all the references to "I" in there. You'd remove the noise and litter if we were spread out as I suggest, I dare say you'd lose a lot of the rudeness too as people's quality of life improved. "I don't want to live in a place like that and I don't see why I should." The ultimate in NIMBY selfishness - you think we enjoy it anymore than you do? What gives you the right to enjoy your life in the country while millions of us are crammed in together - I propose giving everyone in the country the space they need to enjoy their lives, you oppose it for your own selfish interests. If you'd read my earlier posts you would have observed that for those areas of natural beauty and National Parks they would be protected, the rest of the countryside would be available for building, thus giving lots of places for people who like the countryside to visit and the places they do visit will be of a higher standard. Farmers always moan about how they get low prices for their produce, in economics this is called a "market signal" for them to leave farming, sell their land to a property developer for several hundred grand and never have to work again, thus the price of produce would increase as their are less farmers and the situation would return to the market equilibrium - also it gives us the opportunity to bolster the Third World economy by buying their cheap produce instead of paying more for our own heavily subsidised produce - it's happened with textiles and call centres why not with tomatoes and carrots?


    you're really not getting this are you? how can you tell by looking at a fox at a distance whether it's old or sick? why waste your time killing foxes that have very likely not killed your livestock, and let the ones that have continue to do so? hunting separates the 2 groups out easily.

    You would assume that the vet or whoever would have to get up close to the fox in order to kill it in which case the identification you talk about would be easily apparant. Hunting is actually hugely inefficent in controlling the fox population, all those hours spent chasing one fox when it would be a lot easier to just go to the warren and put down some poison, you could have killed an entire fox set by the time your hunting friends had got all kitted out and onto their horses in the first place.


    when did i ever say that hunting is not a method of pest control? stop putting words in my mouth please. why is hunting most definitely a blood sport over pest control?

    I never said you didn't, I just asked you to clarify that in your statement when you said we were talking about two different things. Hunting is easily a blood sport first and foremost because of the logic of it - you don't always catch a fox, you only chase one fox, the sheer inefficencies of it as a pest control method show it to be a blood sport primarily.


    i'll tell you what's cruel. millions of other animals being needlessly poisoned and accidentally shot. foxes that take several days to die as opposed to a minute.

    What about those other animals that get in the way of the hunt? Are they not trampled over? You know as well as I do that you could limit these risks, putting the poison well into the foxes warren, shooting at close range etc.
    you don't give a shit about the foxes welfare as you have just so eloquently proved. the whole thing is a class and urban/country one isn't it. you obviously hate the countryside passionately to want its total destruction. you don't seem to understand that the farmers i see every couple of weeks walking around in wellingtons and tatty macs aren't blood-crazed toffs in red coats and on horses. you are a hypocrite.
    I do, as I said in my other post, I would always put human beings over animals and I make no apologies for that but that doesn't stop me believing that we shouldn't treat animals with respect. It certainly seems to be a class war on your side at least, the only people I saw on that march in London were farmers and other well off countrysiders, unlike the anti-hunt position which has support from across the political spectrum, across the classes and across the country. My dear, if I am a hypocrite, you are the supreme example of a selfish NIMBY.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    You and your fellow NIMBYs are the selfish ones mate.

    What the fuck is a NIMBY any way

    I consider the enviroment to be a major factor in the quality of life we lead. Your attitude would eventually lead to the destruction of most of the countryside and extinction of many animals. Your fucking nuts.

    I don't now if it's escaped your attention but we rely on plants for much of the air we breathe!

    If you want to improve your quality of life work for it - don't expect it to be given to you at the expense of the countryside! That's sefishness!

    Why not work on improving the parts of the country that have already been developed.
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    "I don't want to live in a place like that and I don't see why I should."

    What you jelaous! :lol:

    Thats' not my attitude at all :rolleyes: ...my view would be the same if I lived in the centre of London. I don't just want the countryside to remain for my benifit - I want it for the rest of the country, my kids and YOU to appreciate.

    I still think you fucking nuts!
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard, its a label for all those people who stop necessary developments for the nation because they don't want to suffer themselves for it because of selfish reasons such as declining property prices.

    I don't think anyone would let an increase in the national building programme lead to the extinction of animals, we could always move the animals to safari parks or nature reserves which is where most of the animals which are at risk are currently located anyway. True it would lead to the destruction of most of the countryside but I think the benefits outweigh the costs and the countryside which remains would be protected and looked after a lot better.

    Yes, we rely on plants but not just trees, also its the planet as a whole rather than Britain that you need to look at, what I'm proposing is minor compared to the destruction of the Amazon. What you can't ignore is that we are increasingly overcrowded in this country and so need to develop the land, its simple common sense.

    Work for it? Please tell me how nurses and teachers and low paid workers can work any harder to be able to afford a £200,000+ mortgage in the South East. On the contrary, it is much less selfish to build on what is basically underused land to provide high quality affordable housing for millions of people. Why should millions of people have to rely on unaffordable poor quality housing just so you can enjoy the benefits of space that you seek to deny to others.

    I agree with you that we should improve the brownfield sites first and that we should try and reduce the North/South divide, however even after these measures are taken into account we are an increasing population which has seen little new building development for the last twenty years which therefore indicates that there needs to be more development of the countryside, it should be a last option but it should be an option we are willing to use.

    LOL No, I'm not jealous. I'll leave the cow shit, morris dancing and the Archers to you country folk! ;) What I am saying is that we have the room for affordable, spacious, high quality homes for everyone in this country and so we'd be foolish not to use it. You wouldn't want to live in a bedsit, B&B accommodation or other similarly cramped and unpleasant accommodation so don't deny others the chance to be able to get it which they could do if we built of the acres of frankly unnecessary countryside - this country is hugely underdeveloped, even if we doubled the amount of developed land the majority of land would still be countryside.

    If you want the rest of the country to benefit, why are you so averse to building on the countryside so many millions more people can enjoy a nice comfortable affordable house with nice gardens. A day out to the countryside is all well and good but you still have to come back to the city with its low quality unaffordable accommodation, while you propose a nice day out, I'm proposing something that would improve peoples lives.

    I don't want to concrete over the whole of the countryside like you're suggesting, as I have we would protect those areas that remained much more and they would be the nice attractive areas that people wanted to visit. Why are you people so averse to building on the countryside, there's so much of it to go around, as I said we could double the amount of developed land in this country and the majority of land in this country would still be countryside.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    after your victory over fox hunting comes shooting. it will be ilegal to shoot any creature soon, or fish or capture a rabbit for supper.
    you are going to legislate the great human creature into being being as dull as fucking ditchwater the way your going.
    i will encourage people to hunt ilegaly in protest at people like you interfering in centuries old pleasure. yes some of us are still 'human' enough to enjoy blood. because you can't understand it you want it banned. are there not more important things for you to be getting all het up about?
    you happy to have the police yet ever more overstretched? the judicial system is not far from collapse now and you want to make ever more do's and fucking don'ts!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard, its a label for all those people who stop necessary developments for the nation because they don't want to suffer themselves for it because of selfish reasons such as declining property prices.

    My God! How selfish of people to not want to be locked into negative equity! It's almost like they're just doing it to spite you. :rolleyes:


    I don't want to concrete over the whole of the countryside like you're suggesting, as I have we would protect those areas that remained much more and they would be the nice attractive areas that people wanted to visit. Why are you people so averse to building on the countryside, there's so much of it to go around, as I said we could double the amount of developed land in this country and the majority of land in this country would still be countryside.
    Do you have any concept of reality? You're suggesting the most convoluted, implausible rubbish that I've heard in a long time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by squat_tom
    My God! How selfish of people to not want to be locked into negative equity! It's almost like they're just doing it to spite you. :rolleyes:



    Do you have any concept of reality? You're suggesting the most convoluted, implausible rubbish that I've heard in a long time.

    Most people are able to get compensation for such developments either as a pre-development offer or through the courts. The selfishness comes from the fact that they, as I have said a thousand times now, seek to deny others the type of comfortable, affordable homes they own themselves.

    I think I have far more a concept of reality than you, I can see that there is a need for more houses in this country and we have the room to do it. I've yet to hear someone willing to engage with me in a proper debate about this except to say that because it's the countryside it's somehow a special case - tell me why it's a special case. As for it being a load of implausible rubbish I suggest you look at the government's housing plans for the South East because that's virtually what I'm proposing and it's going to happen. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    Most people are able to get compensation for such developments either as a pre-development offer or through the courts. The selfishness comes from the fact that they, as I have said a thousand times now, seek to deny others the type of comfortable, affordable homes they own themselves.
    Don't you see the glaring contradiction in the statement? You want to make even more people homeless, to make way for the developments that you propose. Is that supposed to be funny?

    I think I have far more a concept of reality than you, I can see that there is a need for more houses in this country and we have the room to do it. I've yet to hear someone willing to engage with me in a proper debate about this except to say that because it's the countryside it's somehow a special case - tell me why it's a special case. As for it being a load of implausible rubbish I suggest you look at the government's housing plans for the South East because that's virtually what I'm proposing and it's going to happen. :p
    Of course there is need for more housing. But the answer isn't in cememnting over this country's beautiful countryside. Just because you live in a shoebox in the city, doesn't justify you trying to take it out on people with larger houses than you.
    The reason that nobody has engaged you in a "proper debate" is because you are not allowing them to. A debate does not consist of one party contradicting everything that is said by the other side.
    As for your concept of reality, you are deluding yourself. Taking the foundations of a goverment housing scheme and extrapolating it to the Nth degree does not make you in tune with the real world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by squat_tom
    Don't you see the glaring contradiction in the statement? You want to make even more people homeless, to make way for the developments that you propose. Is that supposed to be funny?


    Of course there is need for more housing. But the answer isn't in cememnting over this country's beautiful countryside. Just because you live in a shoebox in the city, doesn't justify you trying to take it out on people with larger houses than you.
    The reason that nobody has engaged you in a "proper debate" is because you are not allowing them to. A debate does not consist of one party contradicting everything that is said by the other side.
    As for your concept of reality, you are deluding yourself. Taking the foundations of a goverment housing scheme and extrapolating it to the Nth degree does not make you in tune with the real world.

    I mean compensation for the decline in their property prices caused by the replacement of surrounding countryside by new homes not for bulldozing their houses which is just ridiculous. :rolleyes: I don't want to make anyone homeless, the whole point of my idea is to give people homes not take them away. :rolleyes:

    I don't live in a shoebox in the city thank you for your concern, unlike you countrysiders I'm not concerned with this for my own ends. How am I taking this out on people with larger houses? I am suggesting siezing their property or evicting them? No. I am simply suggesting that the land is put to better use by building houses on it than by leaving it as countryside. Who's contradicting who? I am allowing people to debate me. I'm putting my case and all I hear is "we like the countryside so therefore you're 'fucking nuts'" not much of a debate to me.

    Have you seen the size of the proposed government housing scheme? The Thames Gateway proposed development stretches through a very large section of south Essex and North Kent and the other areas are of a similar scale so in effect what I am suggesting is merely an extention of government policy which I back wholeheartedly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you may well need to concrete the south of england ...best of luck. the rest of the country is not in that position. manchester are pulling down thousands of empty houses because the population has fallen and the type of housing needed has changed. there is ample space to build anew, on old industrial sites as well.
    as the people are moving out the foxes are moving in!
    but believe it or not england is not just the south east!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    you may well need to concrete the south of england ...best of luck. the rest of the country is not in that position. manchester are pulling down thousands of empty houses because the population has fallen and the type of housing needed has changed. there is ample space to build anew, on old industrial sites as well.
    as the people are moving out the foxes are moving in!
    but believe it or not england is not just the south east!

    I am more than aware England is not just the South East. The trouble is that successive governments have allowed the balance of development in this country to be based on London to a ridiculous extent. I don't say we should build on the countryside as a first option, as a first option I would try and rebalance the North and the South but all the forecasts say that this is unlikely. There is little brownfield land left to develop on in the South East, therefore would why should we rule out building on greenfield sites? We need more affordable houses so why not build them, it's the obvious solution. We have foxes in London too but moving this debate slightly back on topic we don't go chasing them on horses with packs of wild dogs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    kevlar, you are a bitter and twisted individual.

    to quote joni mitchell "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

    you have a bizarre view of the countryside - my home is not particularly large considering that 6 people share it, neither is it particularly comfortable. my family aren't rich.

    you think any amount of money could compensate me and millions of others for the loss of the countryside?

    castlesowerby.JPG

    this is what you want to destroy. i live on the other side of the fell.

    i don't dare to presume to dictate how city people should live, despite many things upsetting and annoying me about it/them.

    you hate the countryside? fine. leave it the fuck alone then.

    "they took all the trees, put them in a tree museum / then they charged the people a dollar and a half just to see them"

    Excuse me but do I dare to deliver passing judgements on you as a person because of your views on an issue? No, so kindly pay me the same courtesy and have the intellectual maturity to not make this personal.

    Paradise is a subjective statement, your idea of paradise is the countryside it's not mine. My idea of paradise is a nice spacious affordable housing estate for all. Besides I want to build homes which actually have some purpose as opposed to car parks.

    So you could have a much nicer house if my plans went ahead so you'd benefit too as would millions of others. I don't want to get into a personal discussion about your family income but I will say that although farmers' incomes may be small they certainly aren't poor - most have land worth a couple of hundred thousand, a farmhouse which is worth another hundred grand or so, not including the value of the machinery and livestock.

    The money isn't there to compensate you for the loss of countryside it's there as compensation for any fall in the value of your property because of new building. Also the issue of the greater good is important here, where only a few hundred locals will miss the surrounding countryside there will be a few thousand families who gain nice new homes.

    I don't know what you expect me to say by putting the photo of your village there. Yes, I'm sure as your village you're very proud of it etc so why do you want to stop more people being able to enjoy what you do by having homes there?

    To be honest I find this picture far more attractive and breathtaking than yours.
    preview.jsp?id=31-26-17 It shows what the human race can achieve when we progress which is what this building programme is - progress.

    Well maybe if you took an interest in how city people lived we could all work together to make it a better world rather than saying it's none of my business. Besides how am I stopping you living your life as you want, if you want to keep your land no-one's forcing you to sell, if others do however sell to property developers what right have you got to stop them?

    If I hate something I seek to improve it so I like it rather than leaving it alone. I don't believe in just accepting things because they've always been there, I believe in moving forwards and improving things.

    We do have trees and plants in the city you know. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    and the dogs aren't wild.

    No, they're trained to rip the fox to shreds which is worse. The foxes go through our bins looking for food, they killed my friend's pet guinea pigs, they even attacked a baby it was reported on the news a month or so back. So we could just as easily hunt them down but we don't - instead we call in the council and they poison the fox showing it to be the best way of dealing with them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    We have foxes in London too but moving this debate slightly back on topic we don't go chasing them on horses with packs of wild dogs.
    maybe you should give it a go. gotta be more fun than getting the council man in, in his little white van spreading poison about.
    it pisses me off that your all for killing them but so screwed up about someone enjoying killing them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    To be honest I find this picture far more attractive and breathtaking than yours.
    preview.jsp?id=31-26-17 It shows what the human race can achieve when we progress which is what this building programme is - progress.
    It sounds very much that you are proposing to extend London so that it covers a much greater proportion of the UK.

    Here's an idea, instead of spending money wiping out the countryside to house people who won't stop spawning, why not spend the money on sexual education. There is a strong link between the population explosion and the high number of teen pregnancies. Why pick on the countryside? Why not try to reduce the number of 16-year-olds idly pushing prams around their council estates?

    Or better yet, why not carry out large-scale sterilisation? It makes about as much sense as your suggestions.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    So you could have a much nicer house if my plans went ahead so you'd benefit too as would millions of others. I don't want to get into a personal discussion about your family income but I will say that although farmers' incomes may be small they certainly aren't poor - most have land worth a couple of hundred thousand, a farmhouse which is worth another hundred grand or so, not including the value of the machinery and livestock.

    A farmers income is his land - it's his life. The land may be worth a bit but what's he going to do when it's gone. The famers I know were born in to it and know nothing else.
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    We do have trees and plants in the city you know. :rolleyes:

    How can you compare a few trees and plants to the countryside as it is! :eek2:
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    maybe you should give it a go. gotta be more fun than getting the council man in, in his little white van spreading poison about.
    it pisses me off that your all for killing them but so screwed up about someone enjoying killing them.

    Nah, it's not worth the hassle of knocking over number 37's water feature. ;) Besides given the huge amount of council tax we pay in this borough we should get our money's worth out of them! I don't get why you have to enjoy killing them - they're vermin yes but if we're going to kill animals they at least deserve a quick and relatively painless death which hunting doesn't provide unless by the small chance the dogs happen to bite the fox on the neck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    Nah, it's not worth the hassle of knocking over number 37's water feature. ;) Besides given the huge amount of council tax we pay in this borough we should get our money's worth out of them! I don't get why you have to enjoy killing them - they're vermin yes but if we're going to kill animals they at least deserve a quick and relatively painless death which hunting doesn't provide unless by the small chance the dogs happen to bite the fox on the neck.
    kev you don't HAVE ...to enjoy it but you should accept that many do. it shouldn't in my opinion be seen as something criminal.
    out in the wilds many creatures are suffering death in all it's forms from old age to disease. from being torn aprt to getting squashed ...what next we use our great technology to stop them hurting 'each other'?.


    even roadkill has its seasons ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by squat_tom
    It sounds very much that you are proposing to extend London so that it covers a much greater proportion of the UK.

    Here's an idea, instead of spending money wiping out the countryside to house people who won't stop spawning, why not spend the money on sexual education. There is a strong link between the population explosion and the high number of teen pregnancies. Why pick on the countryside? Why not try to reduce the number of 16-year-olds idly pushing prams around their council estates?

    Or better yet, why not carry out large-scale sterilisation? It makes about as much sense as your suggestions.

    London has always grown, it's in its nature it's from from being the area around the South Bank and the City to being the small pre-60s area of the Inner London boroughs and is now in Greater London the shape it's been in since the 60s and it needs to expand some more. London is growing by the size of a city the size of Leeds every ten years, this is placing intolerable burdens on our public services and our housing market - we need to expand. Some statistics for you - there are 57,000 London families in temporary accommodation without a home of their own usually stuck in grotty B&Bs and these are families with kids we are talking about. London needs 30,000 new houses a year to keep up with demand and I say let's get building.

    I see so you want to turn to Nazi methods to keep your precious countryside for yourself - see the countryside has no productive benefit - an increase in the population should be encouraged, the more people we have the more workers we have to fund our public services and so we can reduce the impact of the demographic timebomb. Why should we stop people having kids it's their right to have kids and if they can raise them then good for them.

    My suggestions make sense in any economic textbook you'd care to look at, my suggestions would I reckon be backed by most people in this country who would like a better quality more affordable home and indeed my suggestions are now government policy. Hell, after this discussion with you countrysiders I'd happily drive the JCB's myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.