The great Foxhunting debate

Ok lets move away from war people. I said in an earlier thread I had much better causes to argue about.

In the uk we have two houses of parliament.

The house of commons represents elected officials that the population of Britain voted for.

The house of lords is higher than the house of commons and can veto any law passed through the house of commons. So even though our elected officials have come up with a law the house of lords have the final say.

The house of lords is built up by royalty, ex politicians and people that have done well in the new years honours list every year.

So what is the problem?

We finally managed with a hell of a lot of protesting to get the house of commons to ban fox hunting. The bill went through to the house of lords and they amended the bill. Fox hunting is now still allowed as long as no foxes are deliberately hurt or killed.

What the hell is that all about? An unelected load of pompous gits overriding the laws of the people we voted in. How can you have fox hunting and not hurt a single fox. Its rubbish.

So guess who the most likely people to go fox hunting are? You guessed it, lords and royalty.

Its a joke.

 

Sorry I failed to specify how fox hunting works... its not just a case of shooting foxes.

A load of people wear stupid red suits and ride there horses blowing on horns. They are accompanied by a pack of specially trained dogs which hunt down and kill the foxes by ripping them to pieces.

The hunter who finds the fox smears the blood across his forehead.

 

Well, it don't take a genious to figure out that you need a different kind of governement, it should always be about the people not some rich old idiots

 

We are a kingdom not a republic therefore we don't elect our overall leader(s)

 

How many Lords and royalty are there ??? i guess you would also include the 'posh people' ??.. How outdated is that..?.

Thousands upon thousands of 'ordinary' people go hunting and enjoy it.

I personaly think foxes are going to be 'managed' anyway.. there will be 'cruelty' because foxes are going to have to be kept under control [thats just a fact]..They cause harm as well as good within the countryside..
I would really like to think foxes are lovely cuddly little animals..causin no 'arm to nobody. this is not true.

I don't believe protesting forced it to be 'banned' i believe it was one or two pragmatic MPs who tried to please all.. and i think to a degree they have..

Only 20% of 'hard core' hunters are apposing the ban.. like a 'hard core' group are not satisfied with the law as it stands..

Who wishes to go through another couple of hundred years to try and please all the people all the time ?..

 

Why do the house of lords get the final say? They are not elected officials.

Our government, the one we voted in, wanted it banned. How can ripping a fox to pieces using dogs be anything but cruelty. Foxes are a damned site more cuddly than the dogs they use to kill them.

One or two pragmatic MPs. It takes a majority vote to get a bill through. Hardly one or two mps. (you are obviously thinking 1 or 2 hundred).

If you don't think its cruel I'll give you a 5 minute headstart then chase you with the same horses and the same dogs.

 

the house of lords do not get the final say, our 'kingdom' has evolved. the house of commons can bypass the lords if they wish, after three failed votes. so there pretty much isn't need for the lords apart from tradition and a check and balance which i do not mind at all.

i agreed with banning fox hunting, do not get me wrong, and they passed the bill so what is the problem?

 

i disagree with banning anything all together. i mean, where does it all stop? i reckon in the uk we've got enough rules as it is and they should just stop.

i am opposed to it, the idea of killing/maiming an innocent animal for enjoyment frankly makes me feel like throwing up, but so does the idea of a state in which all of our actions are controlled by a vast set of rules.

where do you draw the line? no ones in that position. except god, but the guys not very talkative...

 

yeah i agree to an extent, but as long as we have a legal system in this country then it is enivitable, are you suggesting anarchy in the UK?

i feel strongly about the banning of fox hunting, as i also believe murdering another human wrong, should that not be banned too?

 

I'm protesting because fox hunting isn't banned completely. They can still ride their horses, blow their horns and chase imaginary foxes.

If a fox happens to get killed by accident then that is ok (says the law) but they can't kill a fox on purpose.

Its kind of like saying to Gary Glitter "Theres a school bus, you can stand outside but you can't get on".

You don't believe that they go hunting for pretend foxes anymore than I do surely.

As for banning things I'm not usually one for banning things but every other blood sport was banned centuries ago and so I don't see why this one isn't.

 

the thing stopping this, is 'freedom'. as much as i despise the 'sport', i cannot take away somebodies freedom from getting on a horse, and thats the thing, it is technicalities, its just people on horses going for a ride with their dogs not intendin to kill anything, as any human being who drives a car, killing could happen but their isnt usually intent.

if i was running a dictatorship, i would ban any killing of animals, i personally see little difference but i understand its just a personal thing and many disagree so i accept that i cannot do so, but i am not a dictator, this is a 'free' state to an extent.

we either have to accept it or give up our freedoms but then not everyone will be happy
peacex

 

There is a game over here at the moment called happy slapping where gangs of kids go around and slap people and record it on their mobile phones. Its just a game.

Should it be banned or should the people being assaulted just accept it as one of those things.

Those people aren't just riding horses. I have no problem with people riding horses with their dog running alongside but there is no way people with packs of dog are doing anything other than hunting foxes.

 

i am also from the UK and have heard of 'happy slapping' and to answer your question, it is against the law to assault somebody is it not, so it it already against the law

but what you are putting forward is almost saying ban mobile phones because that is part of why people are doing so, but i cannot see that happening. that correlates to the same idea for fox hunting.

 

I never said ban horse riding. I said ban fox hunting. There is a difference and you know it.

 

and i think you know what i am getting at about freedom, if the intent is not there it is against our human rights to ban such a thing, if so many enjoy it but are not killing foxes. let them pretend- actors pretend, wrestlers pretend, i wouldn't waste time on the issue, because unless you want to scrap some of the human rights act then i wouldn't try to change anything

 

anarchy sounds good to me. except the world is full of assholes with little or no moral values. society would work on the principle of morality, lots of laws breed fear and resentment. the problem is we got a lot of tightass conservative fascist wankers running the country who arent willing to reconsider/challenge the way society has developed (my theory as to why weed is still illegal).

now im just rambling
i guess if we have to have stupid amounts of rules, then ones that make sense like banning the killing of innocent animals should be enforced. did you know there hasnt been a single conviction since the laws came into place? its buggered really.

 

i live in a pretty quiet city but my mates and i were out walking and these chavs (stands for Council Housed And Vulgar for u yanks ) pulled up in a car, 2 got out, ran up behind us and properly punched my mate in the face. he had a black eye for days. im a pretty peaceful person in general, but i would have broke their necks if they hadnt jumped back in their car and driven off. scum. cowardly scum.

 

anarchy is fine in theory, just like the majority of things in theory. but for anarchism to work we must presume all to have the same moral characteristics, which i think i can say with confidenced we do not.

we do have too many laws in the UK and we are becoming a nanny state, but i am a high believer in some basic morals, and fox hunting comes under that, i think the state should enforce basic morals.

i am partly glad there has not been a conviction, that could either mean that not too many foxes have been killed and as a animal rights guy i love that thought, or it could mean that the police are not going after these guys and girls. but scrapping that law would be awful, i for one are grateful this government past it through.
peacex

 

I kind of see your House of Lords as a surpreme court(even though it actually is the surpreme court of the land too) They know their place in the public mind, and when they make decsions, they probably have a good reason behind them. They know how divided the UK was on the ban, and the possible consequences.

 

I would scrap some of the human rights act because it has gone too far. Prisoners have too many rights for a start. Whats all the overcrowding in prisons nonsense and they must get their exercise.

Major criminals should be lucky that prison is all they have to put up with, if I was in power the unemployment rate would go down because there would be a lot more jobs as executioner.