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
Lords try to derail hunting bill again
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story Passed in the commons 3 times, Public support yet these morons are still trying to deflect the hunting bill. Ablolish the Lords next I say.
0
Comments
Fucking time-wasting idiots. And then the pro-hunt lobby has the cheek to suggest it is the government that is wasting time on this bill.
Well we wouldn't have wasted time if the superfluous, pointless, selfish, out-of-touch twits had obeyed the will of the people and the House of Commons instead of protecting their little friends. :mad:
They're protecting a large minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
Which is their job, no?
Good for the Lords. More proof why we need a fully independent second chamber.
Public support?
Just because lots of people think it to be good doesn't mean it is.
Unless you think that Maxine Carr should be hanged. That idea has wide public support too.
And no, it is not their job to do that when they're only doing it for their own interest and that of their friends. The whole country has been held to ransom by an unaccountable, unelected, self-serving cartel.
All the more reason to acquire a fully elected upper chamber- such as the Senate in the US- and get rid of those parasites.
This would be the Stop the War Coalition.
The Lords is the only constitutional check we have on the Commons. Perhaps them rejecting this flawd, superfluous, selfish and out of touch bill will make New Labour and its townie scumbag supporters think again.
And when the Lords cease being a constitutional check on the Commons (which is a good thing) and simply become and instrument for a certain group with its own agenda and interests (which is the case with the hunting lot) then the whole institution is unfairly used and the whole democratic process is undermined.
LOL again. The only selfish people are those who think it is their supreme and undisputed right to tear animals apart for fun.
Since the majority of the country is against this barbaric practice, it'd seem that it is the pro-hunt supporters who are a bunch of scumbags who need to realise they're not above the law and the democratic process of this country.
You know its true.
Do some research, study politics, learn something. The Commons must have a check on it, if it didnt we would truly get a dictatorship of parliament.
The COmmons is full of MP's who 'represent' different companies. The Lords is remarkably unbiased because its members are in for life and as such can speak thei minds.
I doubt you have ever actually visited the countryside or seen a hunt, like the Labour backbenchers who are voting for it or the clueless masses who want it banned.
This would be Blair and his socialist New Labour chums.
But let's stay on topic eh?
You misunderstood me there. I was actually saying that having a constitutional check on the Commons is a good thing (not that ceasing to have that check was a good thing). I didn't write it very clearly though so apologies for the confusion.
It is the unelected, irremovable and unaccountable Lords who are more in danger of only serving their own interests and those of their chums. Simply because they are unelected, irremovable and unaccountable- unlike MPs.
The ban on hunting is the perfect example. Only the pro-hunting lot and their friends in the Lords are against the ban. The will of the public and the House of Commons has been trampled again and again and again by a bunch of selfish little saboteurs with no shame.
Rubbish and speculation.
The data and facts regarding fox hunting is available for all to see. It's a good job we don't need to rely on the word of the hunts though- since they've been proven again and again to be a bunch of liars. They lie about the artificial breeding of foxes they claim not to indulge in, they lie about the methods they use, they lie about the actual 'damage' foxes cause, they lie about the particulars of being killed by a bunch of hounds, they lie about their trespassing... and above all they lie about the reasons why they hunt.
Socialist eh? It shows how much of a clue you have...
You mean the 'Burns Report' that said that hunting was the most humane way of killing foxes and then disregarded its findings because it didn't provide evidence for an outright ban.
Why do you keep referring to 'the hunting lot'? How immature is that? It just shows your stereotyical views that your viewpoint is based on.
Is thread attacking the Lords, or attacking Fox Hunting?
And by the way 'xmizzcattyx' the Lords haven't 'brought it up again'. It's part of the law making process in this country that it has to go through the House of Lords. They don't just sit around and then decide what they want to 'bring up'.
This issue has been killed on here. Do a search and do some research before you wade into the arguement with unsubstantiated comments on the pros and cons of hunting.
The data and facts regarding fox hunting is available for all to see. It's a good job we don't need to rely on the word of the hunts though- since they've been proven again and again to be a bunch of liars. They lie about the artificial breeding of foxes they claim not to indulge in, they lie about the methods they use, they lie about the actual 'damage' foxes cause, they lie about the particulars of being killed by a bunch of hounds, they lie about their trespassing... and above all they lie about the reasons why they hunt.
I don't see how you can say that unless you've at least seen a hunt - how can you tell who's lying and who isn't? And think about it: what is the actual success rate of a hunt? maybe one or two foxes a week, for just four months of the year.
And replace it with what?!
Any replacement would still possess the same powers and duties of the Lords!