Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway, so
what was the point?

If you had to die, would you choose being ripping apart by a pack of dogs?

Against being shot, trapped or poisoned, or dying of disease, definitely.

Especially if it was a question of having my neck broken with a quick
swing of the hounds jaws, rather than the ripping apart bit, which
happens afterwards.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The
critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway.

Why?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The
critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway.

Why?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/nfox11.xml

In the real paper, there was a remarkable picture of
this chap with the carcasses of 23 foxes he'd shot
in North London.

In article , Chris Bacon
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway.

Why?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/nfox11.xml

In the real paper, there was a remarkable picture of this chap with the
carcasses of 23 foxes he'd shot in North London.

I think you will find that the problems are mostly (entirely?) human based.
Trying to solve the problem the way it is done by hunts (or above) is no
answer and almost always makes the problem worse. See also today's New
Scientist report on 'problem' elephants.

Treat animals (or humans) as simply numbers and you will never sort out the
problems that you cause. They have psychology (and sociology) just as relevant
as ours. The best way of dealing with the elephant (and fox) 'problem' is to
leave it alone and let their own social system ensure that 'rogue' elements
are rare rather than the norm. In the meantime (getting back to relevance) we
need to clean up our act so that foxes aren't attracted onto our patch by our
badly discarded waste.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Dave" aka Bertie wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

And how many prosecutions have building control pursued as far as
court
in the last 20 years then?



We as we forget the building regs then and sink into the Tory third
world.


Ah, so what you are saying then,


Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third world
levels, what the Tories always advocate. Ask people who have bought a
new house whether they thing there should be tighter checks and certified
tradesmen. They would say a resounding yes as they look at the shoddy
surrounds. They have rules for working people and 'codes of conduct' for
their own lot in the City. All the financial scandals of the past 20
years openly display it doesn't work. But they still scream no laws for
them, while the USA manages to legislate quite well.

Good heavens, I have a seven year

Bertie, stop babbling balls.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

How about closing down the Royal family, as they only pay a 'voluntary'
10% in tax, cost us the maintenance of 9 palaces and planes, trains and
other assorted unnecessary millions.

Stuff that.

Do you mean you want to keep paracites?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person IIRC.
Sounds like very good value to me!

Value for what? They cost an amazing amount of money and most importantly
uphold a strata of privilege of Eton/Harrow, Oxbridge, Judiciary, military
top brass etc.

They serve no purpose except their own. An anacronism that should have gone
100-150 years ago.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:46:32 +0000, Richard Conway
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for
the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!

Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by
the number of people? Don't forget that there are a great many people
in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.

There are also people who pay a great deal of tax

Not the Queen though. During the Thatcher made depression the Queen paid
sweet FA in tax. Only when there was public outrage, as 100,000s were living
on the streets, did she "volunteer" to pay 10%. They are served serving
****ing parasites.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:46:32 +0000, Richard Conway

I would rather fund the Windsors any time - even Phil the Greek.

Then you fund them by your sycophantic self then.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Richard Conway wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for
the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.


What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!


Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by the
number of people?

Can't remember if that was per adult or per adult tax payer... note
however it was an annual figure, so we probably spend more money reading
uk.d-i-y than we do keeping the royals!

in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.

The costs however ignore the money they
generate from tourism,

What money? It has been proven may times than no one comes to the UK
because we have a Queen. All surveys indicate that poepl come to the UK for
many reasons; off the liost was Queeie and here paracites. The castles will
still be there if they are kicked out.

plus the savings we get from having them

It costs you pillock.

(rather than tony and his cronies) act as overseas goodwill ambassadores
etc.

This pillock wants to close down the embassies now. A politician can be
voted out. Democracy and all that. You know that thing we had many soldiers
killed for instigating in Iraq. You might have heard of it.

Then the hidden cots of military; half the British Army is geared to protect
her. Household this and that and Guards this and that. Chocolate soldiers.
The Scots Guards were not combat ready in the Falklands because they were
marching up and down in front of Queenie, hence their poor performance in
combat. And the fighters that accompany the Queen's plane everywhere. The
police costs, and the rest not accounted for.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:40:48 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:46:32 +0000, Richard Conway
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for
the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!

Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by
the number of people? Don't forget that there are a great many people
in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.

There are also people who pay a great deal of tax

Not the Queen though. During the Thatcher made depression the Queen paid
sweet FA in tax. Only when there was public outrage, as 100,000s were living
on the streets, did she "volunteer" to pay 10%. They are served serving
****ing parasites.


They speak highly of you.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:04:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords -
that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and
outside...

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad
law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.

I'm not enthusiastic about it either in that I wouldn't particularly
want to go and do it. However, I don't think that it's appropriate
to legislate against it either when there are far more important
issues.

The majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun. The
problem was that the government should have just banned it and not have
allowed it to drag on for years.

I have no time for bargain hunters either.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.

I go back to my point of bad law though

Banning killing of animal for fun is a very good law and is supported by the
majority of the people.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:57:12 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:04:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords -
that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and
outside...

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad
law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.

I'm not enthusiastic about it either in that I wouldn't particularly
want to go and do it. However, I don't think that it's appropriate
to legislate against it either when there are far more important
issues.

The majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun. The
problem was that the government should have just banned it and not have
allowed it to drag on for years.

In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

The result is the same as for much of the rest of this government's
legislative programme. Unenforceable, idealistic nonsense.





--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:



The majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun.
The problem was that the government should have just banned it and not
have allowed it to drag on for years.


Democracy dies when the people start to believe that membership of a
simple majority confers the authority to control the behaviour of
the corresponding minority.

Are you truly suggesting that any activity of which a majority
disapproves should be made illegal?

In article ,
Joe wrote:
The majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun.
The problem was that the government should have just banned it and
not have allowed it to drag on for years.


Democracy dies when the people start to believe that membership of a
simple majority confers the authority to control the behaviour of
the corresponding minority.

Would that include, say, paedophiles? They might well argue their
behaviour does no harm with a willing child.

Are you truly suggesting that any activity of which a majority
disapproves should be made illegal?

It's too broad a question. But as above if it involves cruelty to another,
either human or animal then yes. Of course vermin need to be controlled
and animals will be used for food. But killed as humanely as possible. Not
being ripped apart by a pack of dogs.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:57:12 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:04:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of
Lords -
that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and
outside...

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of
bad
law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.

I'm not enthusiastic about it either in that I wouldn't particularly
want to go and do it. However, I don't think that it's appropriate
to legislate against it either when there are far more important
issues.

The majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun. The
problem was that the government should have just banned it and not have
allowed it to drag on for years.

In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for
fun.'

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.


I go back to my point of bad law though


Banning killing of animal for fun is a very good law and is supported by
the majority of the people.

So, you're in favour of hanging then? Supported by the majority of the
people and very cost effective.

Regards
Capitol

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Banning killing of animal for fun is a very good law

If it were good law, it would work, would be enforcable, and would be
enforced.

and is supported by
the majority of the people.

The majority of posters to this group think you are a **** and a waste
of space. Does that mean you will now go away and troll somewhere else?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

The morally bankrupt party here is the government for wasting public
money and parliamentary time.


--

..andy

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Banning killing of animal for fun is a very good law

If it were good law, it would work, would be enforcable, and would be
enforced.

It is. Also get caught and prosecution. The law is not ignored.

and is supported by the majority of the people.

The majority of posters to this group think you are a **** and a waste of
space.

They do not only your Lunatic Association. And the LibDems are going to
replace the Tory party as No. 2. And Chav Essex men will get how to use
brain lessons.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.


I go back to my point of bad law though


Banning killing of animal for fun is a very good law and is supported by
the majority of the people.

So, you're in favour of hanging then? Supported by the majority of the
people and very cost effective.

Hanging? Proof please.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes from
Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'. Perhaps we
should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to foxes onto hunt
supporters?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
it would appear in many parts of the country it is business as usual for
the hunts

Criminal friends of yours?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

Neither is the 70mph limit.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:22:08 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

Priorities should be set by the police authorities; not by chief
constables.

--
Frank Erskine

Andy Hall wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote [ re. foxhunting]...
it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.

It depends on how they do it. Didn't you know?


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

But Chief Constables are not the law.


Why don't you two lover boys disappear up each others orifices,
I wonder?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:30:14 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

Neither is the 70mph limit.

Right, which basically means that they may do something when they feel
like it and have nothing more important to do.


--

..andy

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:22:08 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

Priorities should be set by the police authorities; not by chief
constables.


Tell them that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/4431602.stm

I don't suppose that it would have been said if it wasn't thought that
the police authority would not object to the position.

--

..andy

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:33:44 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote [ re. foxhunting]...
it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.

It depends on how they do it. Didn't you know?


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

But Chief Constables are not the law.

No, but they do play a significant part in how it is operated.




Why don't you two lover boys disappear up each others orifices,
I wonder?

I can only speak for myself but perhaps in the good doctor's case it's
because you're there perhaps?



--

..andy

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:22:10 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
it would appear in many parts of the country it is business as usual for
the hunts

Criminal friends of yours?



I don't have any criminal friends.

While I neither condone breaking of the law nor would object to it
being applied where appropriate; as far as fox hunting is concerned,
it is inappropriate to have legislation as much as it is to waste time
and money on what amounts to government grandstanding.

The legislation has failed and will continue to fail and the sooner
it's repealled the better.


--

..andy

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:21:25 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes from
Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'. Perhaps we
should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to foxes onto hunt
supporters?


Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have
done for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or
the average man in the city street.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:30:14 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:11 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see
a
reason to prevent others

I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting
animals
for
fun.'


Who said anything about fun?

In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of
the country it is business as usual for the hunts.

Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.


Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that
this is not high priority for them.

Neither is the 70mph limit.

Right, which basically means that they may do something when they feel
like it and have nothing more important to do.

Sounds about right for lazy policemen.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:21:25 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes
from Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'.
Perhaps we should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to foxes
onto hunt supporters?

Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have done
for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or the
average man in the city street.

So you support bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and slavery then ...?

BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No.


--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:03:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:21:25 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes
from Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'.
Perhaps we should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to foxes
onto hunt supporters?

Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have done
for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or the
average man in the city street.

So you support bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and slavery then ...?

BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No.


Not particularly. I just don't support inappropriate use of
legislation for political ends.

The ID card thing is another example of that game.

Unnecessary and unwanted interference in people's lives.


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have
done for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or
the average man in the city street.

Then bring back cock fighting bull baiting dog fighting etc etc. Doesn't
effect the average man.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:03:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:21:25 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall aka
Matt
wrote:
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes
from Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'.
Perhaps we should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to
foxes
onto hunt supporters?

Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have
done
for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or the
average man in the city street.

So you support bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and slavery then ...?

BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No.

Not particularly. I just don't support inappropriate use of
legislation for political ends.

Neither do we.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:03:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:21:25 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a
reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of
Parliamentary time and money on doing so.

Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes
from Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'.
Perhaps we should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to
foxes onto hunt supporters?

Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have
done for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or
the average man in the city street.

So you support bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and slavery then ...?

BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No.

Not particularly. I just don't support inappropriate use of legislation
for political ends.

All legislation is political so we're stuck on the word 'inappropriate'. I
call it appropriate but long overdue. It was delayed because vested interests
managed to keep up their activities long after related immoral practices were
made illegal.
We're back in the extrapolation business again - but your argument would
equally match any animal welfare legislation, banning slavery & the slave
trade, parliamentary reform, banning the employment of 8 year olds in mines,
&c. It makes one wonder what sort of activities you might approve of.

Unnecessary and unwanted interference in people's lives.

That's probably what paedophiles think about their activities being subject to
'political' legislation.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing