Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


I said nothing about cruelty or harm to people or animals. I said
'disapprove'. DD didn't mention cruelty or harm, either, justifying
the fox-hunting ban by invoking the disapproval of the majority,
as if that was a sufficient argument. *That's* what I'm taking
exception to.

It would be hard to find a single human activity which wasn't
disapproved of by someone, and I think we are all aware of the
sheep-encouraging abilities of the mass media. One might suspect,
veering vaguely back towards topic, that 'the majority' of the
British public might disapprove of DIY electrical work, especially
if so encouraged. Is that sufficient grounds to ban it (totally)? Or
would facts and rational argument be a desirable part of the legislative
process?

"Joe" wrote in message
...

justifying the fox-hunting ban by invoking the disapproval of the
majority,
as if that was a sufficient argument. *That's* what I'm taking exception
to.

So you obviously don't like democracy. There are various tyrannical regimes
around the world which you may find more appealing.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:39:46 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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'm not stuck on it at all. It's unnecessary and inappropriate and
that's that.

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.

From what I hear today, there is just as much hunting going on as
there was a year ago. The police have limited powers and little
interest in doing anything about it because of the hopeless drafting
of the legislation. The government couldn't even manage to create
effective legislation. Given that situation, they have wasted huge
amounts of money and valuable parliamentary time on something that in
the overall scheme of priorities is not that important.


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.

We're not in extrapolation at all. The point was about hunting
legislation and it was against the original background of other
worthless legislation like part P of the Building Regulations. Both
are and have been shown to be pointless.




Unnecessary and unwanted interference in people's lives.

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

That certainly is extrapolation and a weak way to justify something
that is as inherently as pointless and broken as the government who
enacted it.


--

..andy

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:02:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.


The point really is that if there is going to be legislation, at least
do it properly.

The problem for the government is that to do so would require quite
draconian measures and huge costs. They have enacted a window
dressing type of legislation. Slightly more people are not in favour
of fox hunting as are for it (or more specifically not in favour of
legislating against it).

If the supplementary question were asked as to how much resource they
wanted to be spent on it at the expense of things like petty theft and
graffiti on walls and they were asked to choose; I am pretty sure that
the numbers who care about the hunting issue at the expense of things
that immediately affect them would be quite a lot less.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:39:46 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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'm not stuck on it at all.

You are.

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.

From what I hear today, there is just as much hunting going on as
there was a year ago.

If they kill animals I would jail the lot of them. Barbarians.

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.

We're not in extrapolation at all.

We are.

Unnecessary and unwanted interference in people's lives.

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

That certainly is extrapolation

It is.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:02:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
through a haze of senile flatulence wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall aka Mat 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.

The point really is that if there is going to be legislation, at least
do it properly.

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?

Doctor Drivel wrote:

From what I hear today, there is just as much hunting going on as
there was a year ago.


If they kill animals I would jail the lot of them. Barbarians.


IMM is a vegetarian immigrant then?

Regards
Capitol

Doctor Drivel wrote:


How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?


The rest of the world does, why do you think that we are different?

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

From what I hear today, there is just as much hunting going on as
there was a year ago.


If they kill animals I would jail the lot of them. Barbarians.


IMM is a vegetarian immigrant then?

I see no relevance to immigrant.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?

The rest of the world does,

Do they? They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we should
do that as well.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we
should do that as well.

I would make this the first priority of anyone posting drivel :-)

Dave

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?


The rest of the world does,


Do they? They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we
should do that as well.

Nah. Too messy. Stick to hanging. Public possibly. Maybe we can sell it
to tv as a franchise. Gives Gordon some more tax revenue to waste.

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?


The rest of the world does,


Do they? They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we
should do that as well.

Nah. Too messy. Stick to hanging. Public possibly. Maybe we can sell it to
tv as a franchise. Gives Gordon some more tax revenue to waste.

I hope Gordon taxes the hell out of you.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

I hope Gordon taxes the hell out of you.

All the more for your benefits cheque heh?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

I hope Gordon taxes the hell out of you.

All the more for your benefits cheque heh?

Do they have coloured ones for Chavs?

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.


The point really is that if there is going to be legislation, at least
do it properly.

It probably would have been without the diversion tricks of those who
think it ok to rip animals apart for sport.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

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

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

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


The point really is that if there is going to be legislation, at least
do it properly.

It probably would have been without the diversion tricks of those who
think it ok to rip animals apart for sport.

If those who so vehemently opposed fox hunting had been genuinely
motivated by considerations of animal welfare then they would not have
concentrated on hunting with dogs. Fishing is by far the most barbaric
and most pervasive of the 3 common blood sports and even an apparently
innocent pastime like keeping a pet cat probably causes more destruction
to wildlife in 24 hours than fox hunting has since its inception in
modern form (IIRC) circa 1750. (Yes John it has be around for
centuries).

--
Roger Chapman

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:29:28 GMT Roger wrote :
If those who so vehemently opposed fox hunting had been genuinely
motivated by considerations of animal welfare then they would not
have concentrated on hunting with dogs.

But likewise if those who argue that foxes are pests which need to be
controlled genuine felt this they wouldn't put so much effort into
creating conditions favourable to foxes.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?



The rest of the world does,



Do they? They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we
should do that as well.

Nah. Too messy. Stick to hanging. Public possibly. Maybe we can sell
it to tv as a franchise. Gives Gordon some more tax revenue to waste.


I hope Gordon taxes the hell out of you.

Nah, he's too dIMM. I was finance trained in multinational companies.
Capital gains are largely tax free if managed properly. Offshore
beneficial trusts are quite good as well.

Under this government only the poor, pay really high taxes. You must
really be suffering.

Regards
Capitol

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?




The rest of the world does,




Do they? They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe
we should do that as well.

Nah. Too messy. Stick to hanging. Public possibly. Maybe we can sell
it to tv as a franchise. Gives Gordon some more tax revenue to waste.



I hope Gordon taxes the hell out of you.


Nah, he's too dIMM. I was finance trained in multinational companies.


I find that hard to believe as you come across as totally and utterly
stupid.


That's unusual, you normally believe everything that you read. How's
life going in your care home? Given up the medication we see.

Regards
Capitol

In article , Roger
wrote:
fox hunting has since its inception in modern form (IIRC) circa 1750. (Yes
John it has be around for centuries).

I think one hunt has an (unconfirmed) 'pedigree' going back that far. Most are
of late 19th century and rely on 'new' money from the late 20th century. In
any case the ritual almost died out about 100 years ago but was 'resued' by
the import of foxes from Scandinavia. I think that just about demolishes most
of the justfications that are used for the continued (illegal) practice.

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

fox hunting has since its inception in modern form (IIRC) circa 1750. (Yes
John it has be around for centuries).

I think one hunt has an (unconfirmed) 'pedigree' going back that far.
Most are
of late 19th century and rely on 'new' money from the late 20th century. In
any case the ritual almost died out about 100 years ago but was 'resued' by
the import of foxes from Scandinavia. I think that just about
demolishes most
of the justfications that are used for the continued (illegal) practice.

D'ye [na] ken John Peel?

You got any evidence at all to back your up your overheated imagination?

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
[about a (very) short account of fox Hunts in the UK]
You got any evidence at all to back your up your overheated imagination?

As I hadn't stated anything controversial I'm at a loss to see what you are
questioning. Such Hunts generally started following the Napoleonic Wars (after
the Peninsular Campaign) and only really took off in the late 19th Century.
Foxes were thin on the ground at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries and Hunts
imported fresh foxes from Scandinavia to supply 'sport' - after the example of
other Hunts who imported foxes into Spain and Australia for the same purpose.
Hunts were generally dying out in the 20th century until revived by new money
from the likes of retired pop musicians and others able to generate serious
sums of money quickly but needing to buy an 'acceptable' position in society.

--
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

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

How else do you say, "you don't kill animals for fun"?




The rest of the world does,




Do they? They chop heads off in public in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we
should do that as well.

Nah. Too messy. Stick to hanging. Public possibly. Maybe we can sell
it to tv as a franchise. Gives Gordon some more tax revenue to waste.



I hope Gordon taxes the hell out of you.


Nah, he's too dIMM. I was finance trained in multinational companies.


I find that hard to believe as you come across as totally and utterly
stupid.

That's unusual

That is not unusual, as there are other stupid people around too.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger wrote:
[about a (very) short account of fox Hunts in the UK]
You got any evidence at all to back your up your overheated imagination?

As I hadn't stated anything controversial I'm at a loss to see what you
are
questioning. Such Hunts generally started following the Napoleonic Wars
(after
the Peninsular Campaign) and only really took off in the late 19th
Century.
Foxes were thin on the ground at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries and
Hunts
imported fresh foxes from Scandinavia to supply 'sport' - after the
example of
other Hunts who imported foxes into Spain and Australia for the same
purpose.
Hunts were generally dying out in the 20th century until revived by new
money
from the likes of retired pop musicians and others able to generate
serious
sums of money quickly but needing to buy an 'acceptable' position in
society.


We don't have any retired (or otherwise) pop stars in the nearby Holdernes
or York and Ainsty regions. AFAIK the majority of the members are local
small businessmen (shopkeeepers, garages, farmers,plumbers etc) or simply
country folk and their wives. I don't hunt personally but I do ride for
pleasure and meet many of the folks who do hunt while out riding or at local
shows. Nothing "special" or stuck up about them, just folks who enjoy their
pastime. From discussions with them most of the kills are rapid and must be
less traumatic than dying slowly over a week or so with a bullet or shotgun
wound festering away, or a partial dose of poison.
The antis often come up with fairy stories about dubious practices such as
breeding foxes for release etc but I figure this works on the basis if
something is said often enough it must be right mustn't it? It is like many
other things in life - someone makes an outrageous claim which because there
isn't any data to question or disprove is difficult to refute.

in 502269 20060221 153207 "John" wrote:
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger wrote:
[about a (very) short account of fox Hunts in the UK]
You got any evidence at all to back your up your overheated imagination?

As I hadn't stated anything controversial I'm at a loss to see what you
are
questioning. Such Hunts generally started following the Napoleonic Wars
(after
the Peninsular Campaign) and only really took off in the late 19th
Century.
Foxes were thin on the ground at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries and
Hunts
imported fresh foxes from Scandinavia to supply 'sport' - after the
example of
other Hunts who imported foxes into Spain and Australia for the same
purpose.
Hunts were generally dying out in the 20th century until revived by new
money
from the likes of retired pop musicians and others able to generate
serious
sums of money quickly but needing to buy an 'acceptable' position in
society.


We don't have any retired (or otherwise) pop stars in the nearby Holdernes
or York and Ainsty regions. AFAIK the majority of the members are local
small businessmen (shopkeeepers, garages, farmers,plumbers etc) or simply
country folk and their wives. I don't hunt personally but I do ride for
pleasure and meet many of the folks who do hunt while out riding or at local
shows. Nothing "special" or stuck up about them, just folks who enjoy their
pastime. From discussions with them most of the kills are rapid and must be
less traumatic than dying slowly over a week or so with a bullet or shotgun
wound festering away, or a partial dose of poison.
The antis often come up with fairy stories about dubious practices such as
breeding foxes for release etc but I figure this works on the basis if
something is said often enough it must be right mustn't it? It is like many
other things in life - someone makes an outrageous claim which because there
isn't any data to question or disprove is difficult to refute.

Like the one about fox-hunting being necessary?

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:32:07 +0000 (UTC) John wrote :
The antis often come up with fairy stories about dubious practices
such as breeding foxes for release etc but I figure this works on
the basis if something is said often enough it must be right
mustn't it?

At the weekend the Telegraph - scarcely a left-wing rag - had a
story saying that since the hunting ban far more foxes were being
shot than were previously killed by hunts. Now if foxes are pests
then one assumes that farmers think this a very good thing. But the
Conservatives have promised to reverse the anti-hunting law if they
get back into power which presumably means that there will be more
foxes around. All this makes it very clear that fox hunting is
nothing more than pursuing a creature and killing it for pleasure.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:00 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 502269 20060221 153207 "John" wrote:

We don't have any retired (or otherwise) pop stars in the nearby Holdernes
or York and Ainsty regions. AFAIK the majority of the members are local
small businessmen (shopkeeepers, garages, farmers,plumbers etc) or simply
country folk and their wives. I don't hunt personally but I do ride for
pleasure and meet many of the folks who do hunt while out riding or at local
shows. Nothing "special" or stuck up about them, just folks who enjoy their
pastime. From discussions with them most of the kills are rapid and must be
less traumatic than dying slowly over a week or so with a bullet or shotgun
wound festering away, or a partial dose of poison.
The antis often come up with fairy stories about dubious practices such as
breeding foxes for release etc but I figure this works on the basis if
something is said often enough it must be right mustn't it? It is like many
other things in life - someone makes an outrageous claim which because there
isn't any data to question or disprove is difficult to refute.

Like the one about fox-hunting being necessary?

The question is more one of whether it is appropriate to legislate
(ineffectively as well) in something that doesn't directly affect
humans who are not involved in it. There are much higher priorities,
and this has much to do about lobbying by people whose lives are not
affected by something to attempt to restrict the freedoms of others.

It's a slippery slope.

If we are going to take this path then I think that we should ban
angling. It isn't necessary.

Furthermore I think that we should make attendance at professional
soccer matches illegal. I find that people participating in these
behaving agressively on the street, in trains and buses and urinating
in phone boxes. Clearly this is uncivilised and should be banned,
especially as it affects other humans.
It isn't necessary.


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
restrict the freedoms of others

Your freedom to get pleasure from killing other sentient creatures is not a
freedom to be cherished.

--
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 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:06:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
restrict the freedoms of others

Your freedom to get pleasure from killing other sentient creatures is not a
freedom to be cherished.


I have never said that I had any interest at all in being involved in
foxhunting. I simply said that it is not appropriate to waste
parliamentary time and invoking the Parliament Act to force through
legislation for which even the prime minister has little enthusiasm.

The result has been something that is unenforceable because the
legilsation is fundamentally broken and the police have little
interest in applying it.

If I thought for one moment that this had anything to do with animal
welfare I would support it without question.

The reality is that it doesn't. If the government were serious about
animal welfare, they would have dealt with angling and other forms of
sport involving animals. They didn't.

Therefore one has to look beyond this into the real motivations. These
are clearly grandstanding to the desires of a few pressure groups
whose members are not involved in or affected by fox hunting; an
attempt by town dwellers to impose their standards on country dwellers
and last but not least some kind of misplaced class warfare.


On the basis of this, and not because of animal welfare, the
legislation should be repealled and the government should resign for
abuse of parliamentary procedures. The whole affair is thoroughly
dishonest.


--

..andy

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

You got any evidence at all to back your up your overheated imagination?

As I hadn't stated anything controversial I'm at a loss to see what you are
questioning. Such Hunts generally started following the Napoleonic
Wars (after
the Peninsular Campaign) and only really took off in the late 19th Century.
Foxes were thin on the ground at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries
and Hunts
imported fresh foxes from Scandinavia to supply 'sport' - after the
example of
other Hunts who imported foxes into Spain and Australia for the same
purpose.
Hunts were generally dying out in the 20th century until revived by
new money
from the likes of retired pop musicians and others able to generate serious
sums of money quickly but needing to buy an 'acceptable' position in
society.


So where is your evidence that:

a) That there was very little fox hunting prior to the late 19th century.

b) That foxes were so thin on the ground circa 1900 that hunts in
general were importing foxes in bulk.

c) That fox hunting very nearly died out at that time and was only saved
by the said imports.

d) That fox hunting was dying out in the late 20th century before being
revived by new money.

c) That it was new money from social climbers that revitalised the sport.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:10:41 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Therefore one has to look beyond this into the real motivations.
These are clearly grandstanding to the desires of a few pressure
groups whose members are not involved in or affected by fox
hunting; an attempt by town dwellers to impose their standards on
country dwellers and last but not least some kind of misplaced
class warfare.

Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take
the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours
then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:14:33 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:10:41 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Therefore one has to look beyond this into the real motivations.
These are clearly grandstanding to the desires of a few pressure
groups whose members are not involved in or affected by fox
hunting; an attempt by town dwellers to impose their standards on
country dwellers and last but not least some kind of misplaced
class warfare.

Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take
the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours
then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.


I'm always in favour of tax cuts. However, subsidies are present all
over the place and in all kinds of facets of life.

Subsidy doesn't imply control.

For example, I'm not sure that the average taxpayer expects to control
how day care centres work when he doesn't have kids to send to one,
but he still pays.


--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
restrict the freedoms of others

Your freedom to get pleasure from killing other sentient creatures is not a
freedom to be cherished.

Oh dear, another pompous prig sails into sight.

Your freedom to use oxygen that could better have been used on raising
whelks is something that causes me concern.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
If I thought for one moment that this had anything to do with animal
welfare I would support it without question.

The reality is that it doesn't. If the government were serious about
animal welfare, they would have dealt with angling and other forms of
sport involving animals. They didn't.

You're saying that you're happy to encourage person A to rape & murder because
person B can get away with rape & murder, that theft should not be punished
unless all theft can be punished. I don't accept that that view is either
valid or moral.

--
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

In article ,
Roger wrote:
So where is your evidence

It's normally only asked where there is any question. Are you seriously
questioning it - or have you not even bothered to Google?

--
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 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:14:33 GMT, Tony Bryer wrote:

Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc

Nonsense. The busses and POs are both run by private companies, and
where I live we don't have either.

--
Nigel M

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

You need to justify any sort of killing. Most of the so-called damage
'caused'
by foxes is caused because of the disruption done by killing foxes.
Until you appreciate that the whole thing is done for fun and status -
and not
for any need connected with foxes - you will continue to misunderstand the
whole business.

Sanctimonious bull****. They don't hunt round my way so foxes, like
other vermin, are shot.

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Roger
wrote:
like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

*Else the fox's view of you as 'vermin' is just as valid and justification for
you being shot out of hand.

--
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 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:23:35 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
If I thought for one moment that this had anything to do with animal
welfare I would support it without question.

The reality is that it doesn't. If the government were serious about
animal welfare, they would have dealt with angling and other forms of
sport involving animals. They didn't.

You're saying that you're happy to encourage person A to rape & murder because
person B can get away with rape & murder, that theft should not be punished
unless all theft can be punished. I don't accept that that view is either
valid or moral.

That's good because that is not what I was saying at all.

It's no good trying to move things out of a very specific context and
example into something totally different and unrelated.

The point was very specifically about a poor piece of legislation that
was not enacted for the reasons claimed and which is fundamentally
broken. That's it. Nothing more.



--

..andy