Tally Ho!

[Elfin]

Oh dear. What an embarassing and shamefully un-British display at Westminster today by the allegedly civilised pro-hunt demonstrators. Have they done their futile campaign any good or is that the final nail in the coffin...?

[el duerino]

well if democracy requires that access be allowed, unfortunately acts like this must be classed as an abuse of that democracy. I am actually pro-hunt, or perhaps 'anti-ban' would be better, but it does annoy me when protests turn violent and people then start crying to their mummy about getting hit. One woman said 'he deliberately hit me' - guess you shouldnt have been trying to tear the barrier down then. Personally I would have used a heavier baton on her face but nevermind. I can only hope that Parliament does not abuse the Parliament Act and force it through Lords.

[bernardo]

No, they haven't done their cause any good, and yes (hopefully), it will be the final nail in their coffin.

The so-called "Countryside Alliance" is a rag-tag collection of red-neck, swivel-eyed, reactionary country bumpkins with no sense of normality or common sense. It's a pity that one of Osama bin Laden's people did not drop a big chemical bomb on the middle of the crowd of protestors today and make them all writhe around while suffocating to death in paroxysms of agony. That might have made them learn to show a bit of respect for us normal decent open-minded reasonable moderate town-dwelling people.

If the question is Countryside, then the answer should be Countrycide.

[Philtaz]

What I do find funny is their insistence that it is a centuries-old 'sport', not unlike any other! Can anyone else name a 'sport'where the object is to gang up on the opponent at a ratio of roughly 50:1and tear opponent to pieces? Also, why do they insist that there is no alternative to hunting? There are incalculable ways to (humanely) kill a fox. Today they acted just like the frenzied and rabid pack when it catches the fox. They're no better than the terrorists and great unwashed who regularly hijack the May Day celebrations, attacking shops etc.

[Oneeyedvic]

I can't say that I am really fussed either way - both seem to have good arguments. However, I do feel that this is really no longer about the country side or foxes but really about a class thing. The majority of poeple who enjoy this "sport" are the original upper class. As to a sport that has the object of rounding up to your opponent 50:1 - you have obviously never been to one of my old schools rugby matches. But really, the question is, if this is considered brabaric, when is it all going to stop. Next will be fishing, then boxing (it doesn't really matter if people are consenting - it is still barbaric) etc....

[andy hughes]

Interesting arguments abound on this subject. The actions yesterday do not draw sympathy to the (lost) cause, but it does demonstrate the determination of hunt supporters to carry on with their activities. The root of the problem is a matter of perception. City people have pets, country people have working animals, and vermin, and their attitudes to animals are poles apart, with no common meeting point. The only thing that annoys me about fox hunters is their coy excuses - control of foxes / humane hunting, etc. Why don't they just admit that they sport is the chase, and the kill is rare, and merely a bi-product, and control of the fox population has nothing at all to do with it. As a democracy, the people have decided that this activity has to stop, so it will. Speaking as a native of The Potteries, I have seen the livelyhood of the majority of my fellow citizens decimated over the last twenty years on a scale that makes a few gamekeepers signing on the dole look miniscule in comparison. Life moves on, times change, the country people will just have to do what we have had to do - accept the change, and learn to live with it.

[el duerino]

I didn't know that :o Probably just before I started getting interested in current affairs. Indeed a crisis :( I went on a hunt once, really it was a bit boring, more of a walk in the country. We saw a hare, but caught nothing. If a group of people want to dress up, blow horns, and chase a fox (vermin), then let them. I wonder, would we be so quick to judge if they chased rats? snakes? is the size of the animal important? its physical appearance? Hunting is crap, but I fear its banning is the start of a long period of PC actions where people who feel the need to take the moral high ground will jump on any supposed immorality without any understanding of its context. Lets face it, the vast majority of people anti hunt have never been on a hunt, have never lived in the country, and know nothing about its way of life. Its like rural villages voting to have congestion charges in London - imo they simply do not have the knowledge to make an informed decision. 'kill animals wrong' is the basis of their argument.

[Oneeyedvic]

El Duerino - an excellent point that most people (myself included) do not have the experience of going on a hunt etc. But surely, just becasue I can not experience something does not mean I cannot have an opinion about it. OTherwise how can abortion rules come about. THere are very few (not sure how many but certainly less than half) women MPs but legislation is in place. I think people HAVE to make decisions without full knowledge. However, they might not always be good decisions! (Don't want to keep bringing Iraq up but...)

[undercovers]

bloody protesters packed my local, and never have i seen such a selection of social misfits. They're all scum, who we should quite rightly be bringing into line with the rest of the country - stupid tweed wearing twaaats.

[el duerino]

well its not so much the experience, more so the ability once we have that experience to place the event in proper context. most people I imagine conceive of the hunt as a sort of bloodthirsty chase - in actual fact its a meander through the countryside. the fox is a side issue - its a social and cultural thing. I agree its slightly barbaric and rather silly but I do not think its the type of thing that you can ban. You have to ask, why exactly has it been banned? because its cruel to the fox? a vermin that we would happily shoot or poison? presumably rats will also be protected from being trapped or scared? wasps can no longer be killed at will? do you see, merely because the fox is larger and 'prettier' than other animals it gets more protection. people just never consider things like this.

[slimjim]

Final nail in the coffin for the pro-hunt brigade? I doubt it. More like another nail in the coffin for this Government. They've got away with bullying the middle classes over taxation, the pensioners, the nurses, the firemen, etc, etc. But this time they've bitten off more than they can chew. The country-folk will not take this lying down and good for them that they will not be intimidated by the ghastly crowd that seems to inhabit Westminster these days.

[undercovers]

at the time of the industrial revolution the ruling classes banned the majority of blood sports enjoyed by the working masses (e.g. badger baiting, dog fights etc), there was a lot of talk of the barbaric nature of these forms of entertainment (but had more to do with control of the prolatariate) so it is somewhat ironic that the actions of the most working classes are going someway to finish what the ruling classes started 100 years ago; the banning of barbaric and cruel killing of animals for pleasure.

[undercovers]

this is part of a civilising process that has been in action for hundreds and hundreds of years, groups must be incouraged to evolve their moral viewpoints and this "encouragement" is generally in the form of laws / rules because at our most basic level is is rules and regulations that define not only our actions but also our interaction with each other and the environment as a whole.

[el duerino]

so its the pleasure element you find distasteful? do you think some people enjoy other, legal activities that give them pleasure but which others find distasteful? should we outlaw them? finding something distaseful is not legitimate basis for it to be made illegal.

[undercovers]

yes it is, as a group, we the british people, find fox hunting distasteful so our elected representatives are banning it as we the majority have decided that the minority who wish to hunt in this way can only be controled through legislation. If you want to change this ruling all you need to do is find a political party that supports fox hunting and then convince the general population to vote for them - good luck

[Oneeyedvic]

undercovers - do you really beleive we live in a democracy??!!? Do you really think that the British public wanted a 1p increase in NI tax? The public was pretty split on Iraq and I am not convinced over 50% people supported the war. In reality it comes down to one person . Tony Bliar. Most of the labour MPs will do what he says and since they have such a large majority..... How can we call it a democracy when Scottish MPs can vote on English foundation hospitals etc. etc. So although you might find it repulsive I think that saying "we the british people" and "we the majority" is not really accurate.

[undercovers]

i feel we may be getting off track but - no our democracy is not perfect but it is better than the alternative. I think it niave to paint blair as some evil dictator ruling it over us, take some responsibility we elected him and his party to make the decisions we are not equipped / bothered to make ourselves, he is working for us not against us and we can fire him if we wish.

[el duerino]

not really. we elect people who we then trust to act in our best interests. fox hunting is being banned because it is unfashionable. when something you like doing is banned because it has been misunderstood by people who lack the desire and intelligence to place it in its proper context then I hope you maintain your views that it is 'the British public' that has made that decision.

[undercovers]

the representatives of the british public have made this decision, it matters not the reasons why but quite simply the pro-hunters have lost this argument as the majority disagree with them simple as that. i feel we might go round and round in circles on this one thread though as i understand that emotions are high, it will be good to finally draw a line under the reasons for and against this bizarre "sport"

[Oneeyedvic]

I agree that we have been going off at a tangent, however please note that you have 2 comments which are not the same thing: "the representatives...." which I agree with. To make the conenction that the majority of people must therefore support it is erroneous. As I said previously, just because "our representaives" and I mean our MPs agree to raise NI contributions by 1p, does certainly not mean that the majority of people agree with it. Also I must confess (as I have on previous links) that this is not a subject I have a particular view on - can remain impartial and emotion free.