Yes, I've realised that the BBC change the text of their reports as they go along. The interview I was referring to has been removed from that report in the link you posted. The first link you posted now refers to another story, about protestors storming the commons.
It's not an assumption at all. Hence the phrase 'chances are'. ie there's a chance, not a certainty. Indeed not. But then the animal rights movement doesn't have the same history of brutal violence. Well direct personal experience for starters. I'd be very surprised if there weren't violent thugs amongst the police. Given the history of hunt supporters though (who - let's remember - are there defending their right to kill), it doesn't seem unlikely that they provoked a violent response. Not a certainty for sure, but then I never said that.
Death threats against research scientists who undertake animal testing? Bombings carried out by people who support the likes of the ALF? There certainly are dangerous, violent extremists associated with the animal rights movement. It's a lunatic fringe, for sure. Just like there is a lunatic fringe of ignorant violent thugs among those who attend "countryside alliance" marches. All reports I've seen about today's demo (there was come excellent coverage on Channel 4 News, as ever) suggest there was a lunatic fringe at this pro-hunt demo who may well have sparked off the trouble. Innocent protestors appear to have got caught up in the police's over-reaction. It's a mistake to tar all these people with the same brush, or to lose your sense of empathy for innocent people who get caught up in police violence while lawfully protesting. That's why I spoke up against the highly distasteful gloating over human misery that was going on in this thread. Gloating because people with whom we may disagree are getting battered with truncheons. I would expect better from enlightened souls.
See this is where you're completely wrong. Yes, there's a lunatic fringe in the animal rights movement (although the mainstream ALF has always been non-violent), but they are just that - a lunatic fringe. The violent thugs who support the hunt are not a fringe - they're the mainstream. Have you ever been on a sab? If not, it might be something for you to consider. I think you'd find it quite an eye-opener to experience the casual attitude that these people have towards violence. No it's not. These are all, right down to the last man and woman, people who take their pleasure from hunting down and butchering defenceless animals. We didn't tar them with the same brush, they did that themselves (well actually not tar... but rather the process of 'blooding' where they smear the entrails of a dead fox across a child's face to celebrate his or her first kill). By 'gloating', are you by any chance alluding to my celebration of the fact that these people are now at the receiving end of police violence when they've actually encouraged and practiced that violence themselves for years? Then yes, guilty as charged. Hope the fuckers got the shit well and truly kicked outta them. It might teach them something valuable. Forgive me if I fail to feel sympathy for people who kill for pleasure.
Yes, most of the people protesting today would have you believe most of these statements. 99% of violence to do with the animal rights debate has always been against animal rights activists, by these violent idiots whilst the 'innocent' majority as you call them applaud from the side lines and the police back them up. When it isn't they make a big deal about it. Today just proves what we've always tried to say. The reason I'm so happy is that their normal behaviour is there for all to see and long may it continue in full view of the media spotlight. The ALF is by the way against harming animals of any kind, which includes humans. There are those however in the movement who feel that damage to property is a necessary part of the struggle.
on one interview onmy local bbc news (Look East) one woman stated her reason for supporting fox hunting as: " Its a great day out for the kids" What a cruel idea, whilst some people criticise tv for violence and sex, these people take their kids to partake in the ritual slaughter of foxes as a family day out... maybe our society is hypocritical, people can't have sex on tv or have a comedy punch up (which doesn't show anything totally obscene or perverse anyway) but people are allowed to take children to these bloodsports because they are "traditional" and a good social environment. the mind boggles.
You are conflating your hatred for the activity (perfectly reasonable) with a hatred for the people who are exercising their right to protest peacefully. Try to think about it from their point of view. We hate the "sport" they are defending, but to them they are protecting a tradition which they simply do not see as wrong. Society has overtaken them and a majority now believe that these "sport" is brutal and cruel. But they are protesting something which has been lawful for centuries suddenly becoming unlawful. They have the absolute right to do so. I support their right to protest wholeheartedly. As for your comments about violent thugs being a mainstream of the pro-hunt movement, I shall politely disagree. Today's demo was by all accounts largely peaceful. The violence happened in a small area, probably provoked by a tiny minority of the 10,000 people present. The overwhelming majority had no wish to get involved in violent clashes. Like anything, most people are just going about their business in the best way they see fit, and are not militants or thugs. Hey, some of them may even be nice people. Just because I disagree with the activity they choose does not make me hate them personally. I hate the activity, not the person. There are violent, ignorant anti-capitalist demonstrators, there are violent, ignorant animal rights activists, there are violent, ignorant pro-hunt demonstrators. There are violent, ignorant people. In no walk of life or choice of lifestyle do these form a mainstream. So I believe that it is a flawed assumption that all "countryside alliance" folk are casual thugs. Some are! Most aren't. Try to remember in this that I am separating the activity from the person. I'm talking about attitudes towards people, not animals. I do this for reasons stated in the first paragraph above. Only society's evolution has caused the activity to finally be seen as barbarism. It's like trying to judge a past tradition by the standards of your own age - it's impossible because our shared assumptions and moral standards have changed. For these people whose livelihoods depend on this barbaric practice, this past tradition is still very real. Their attitudes have not yet come into line with today's society - that's why we need the ban. These people have been left behind. It does not make them evil. So I think it's wrong to assume that these are all violent, ignorant thugs. I think that's a perfectly natural kneejerk response, but I personally find it important to overcome such feelings and attempt to understand why they behave the way they do rather than condemning thousands, perhaps millions in a trite phrase. To do so is far too easy and does not lead to understanding. Many of these innocent, peaceful protestors, having no wish to get involved in violent clashes, seem to have got on the wrong end of the police's batons. Call it a weakness, but I have serious trouble applauding something like that. To do so is to be guided by anger and hatred rather than understanding. I hate fox hunting as much as you. These people simply haven't achieved this level of understanding yet, it does not make them evil or ignorant.
I should append to this statement a footnote to recognise that there are, of course, violent militant organisations... The countryside alliance is very far from that.
Nope. Not at all. You introduced the word 'hatred' into the conversation, not me. I judge them based on their activities though. Utter rubbish. They're defending something that's barbaric and brutal. You know that, I know that, they know that. Legality has nothing to do with it. If fucking six year old girls had been legal for centuries, I doubt you'd be defending it's supporters. Then I must politely tell you that you don't know what you're talking about, based on the fact that I've had far more direct experience of these people than you have. What a load of utter bullshit. If these people were engaged in hunting down humans and killing them, you wouldn't say they were 'nice people'. It's clear that you have little respect for the lives of the animals, viewing this merely as some sort of abstract moral concept that we can all sit down and debate politely over a cup of tea. No really. It's not an assumption. It's direct personal experience. What part of that don't you understand? And this is your mistake. People undertake activities. The person and the activity do not exist independently of each other. You're wrong. Evil's a word I'm always reluctant to use, but enjoying the butchering of a living creature for 'fun' does make them unpleasant individuals. And I'm getting quite pissed off with you making the assumption that I'm making an assumption, when I've stated quite clearly that my opinions are based on direct personal experience. Showmet, I'm really sorry to be rude because I usually respect the way you frame your arguments, but you're being a patronising twat in this instance. This is not a 'kneejerk response'. It's an attitude formed from direct personal contact with the situation. You assume that because others don't agree with you, they haven't arrived at their opinions rationally. Well if your definition of innocent includes butchering animals for fun, then I guess so.
whoa this is getting to be one heated discussion! yeah, they have a right to protest their side of the case, showmet, but i think that they are protecting a tradition is little off - i mean slavery is still legal in one of the eastern europena countries - i dont recall which and im sure if they started outlawing that the upper/middle class would have something to say about it - would you call that defending a tradition? after all slavery is one of the oldest tricks in the book isnt it, going back to the earliest civilisations in on form or another. and if they care so much about breaking traditions, why dont they all become pest controllers and start a new tradition of humane population control? im sure they could work in some jolly fun and games into it somehow. oh dear, that came out more stereotypical that i;d have liked where i live there are loads of pro hunt supporters, and yes some of them are decent people just worried about their livestock and such, but lot of them are stuck up assholes. its the way things are.
Same here. THe Quorn Hunt's like the biggest hunt int he country and Quorn's only a mile or so down the road But we do have Rosemary Conley too
I'm going to leave this debate because it has become too heated and too personal, and I have no wish to be associated with arguing the case for the "countryside alliance". In closing, I will say this. Cruelty has been part of our nature for millenia. If it weren't for the cruelty of our nature, would we even have evolved to the point where we could be having this debate? Possibly not. What I seek is understanding of the tensions which have arisen between the remnants of our chimpanzee hearts and the development of our progressive, empathetic patterns of thought. In relation to cruelty towards animals, these patterns of thought have a very short history. Perhaps beginning with Darwin when we began to realise that us humans were animals just like the lower beasts, these ideas did not begin to be widely accepted until well into the last century. The standards of society change, and base human nature often has a hard time catching up. I despise fascism and everything fascists advocate. Yet I would defend absolutely the right of a fascist to air his views as part of a legitimate, peaceful demonstration against the prevailing standards of the society of the day. I would cry out if these putative fascist demonstrators were suppressed or subjected to unnecessary violence on the part of the police, even though these fascist demonstrators may well themselves believe that violence is acceptable as part of their political doctrine. The same holds true of anyone who disagrees with society's prevailing attitudes in any area. I will defend the right of a person to march on Whitehall advocating murder as a lifestyle choice. As long as someone is coming forth with an idea, I will defend their right to express that idea in public, no matter how hateful I believe that idea to be, nor how hateful I believe their actions elsewhere might have been. In the case of foxhunting it was, until very recently in human history, and unlike murder, perfectly socially acceptable. In the eyes of the law, it still is. This will, thankfully, be changing. I am extremely happy that we live in a country where someone feels free to peacefully demonstrate against the prevailing standard in our society which states that hunting with dogs is unacceptable. I wholeheartedly support their right to question the assumptions which underpin our society at this point in our cultural evolution. He who is arrogant enough to believe that his own opinions are unequivocally and unquestionably the right opinions has none of my respect. I have no sympathy for cruelty, be it the merciless and needless torture of a fox for "sport", nor the unnecessary truncheoning of a lawful, peaceful protestor in Parliament Square. The idea that people here find it acceptable to celebrate the latter because the protestor stands for something with which they disagree, quite frankly, disgusts me.
I'm sorry mate but this is a completly bonkers statement and I can only sumise that you were either on drugs when you wrote it or are in the SWP. No offence mind.
This is the problem with free speech. While we'd all like it to be an absolute principle, it's an unrealistic ideal. I'm sure your noble aspirations towards free speech would be a great comfort to these victims when such a march actually encourages someone to murder. In this scenario, what if the fascists started winning the argument? What if they started to bring people round to their point of view? If they eventually came to power, do we have the right of saying to those they would kill and oppress "I'm sorry, but we had to let it happen in order to defend the luxury of free speech"? Moving on though, like I've already said, I have absolutely no problem with the hunt scum arguing their point of view in a demonstration. While generally I'm in agreement with this statement, there have to be exceptions. Your argument is coldly intellectual and detached from reality. If I believe that torturing another human being is unequivocally wrong, are you suggesting this would be arrogance? If I believe rape is unquestionably wrong, would this also be arrogance? Your thinking is very noble in its intent, but I believe fundamentally flawed. When he hurt another human, we know it to be wrong. Not because of the prevailing moral ideas within society, but because of the voice of our conscience the cries out inside us. The prevailing morality might better enable us to ignore this voice. It may even help us to convince ourselves that what we're doing is acceptable. But the voice is still there. Empathically, we know that what we're doing is wrong. This is an absolute. Well it's patently obvious that you've never been involved in the animal rights movement. The hunt use violence towards their detractors on a regular basis. The police use violence towards sabs, although less frequently. The hunt have behaved in a worse fashion than the animals that they pursue. When the police have abused sabs, they've laughed. When people have gone on protests and the police have reacted with violence, nobody's cared. Lest of all the hunt. If you don't understand why some people might find it amusing that the boot is finally on the other foot, then you have no understanding of the history of the issue and no empathy for those who've been victims in this struggle for so long. And that, quite frankly, disgusts me.
I found the Daily Mirrors front page quite amusing.... Not that I read it mind, strictly a Beano reader.
