Past EED rants

Labels

Live leaderboard

Poker leaderboard

Voice of EED

Sunday, 26 September 2004

Hunting With Hounds - do we care? [Brit]

I've never been fox hunting.
I've seen the pictures of course, everything from the admittedly glorious site of a hunt in full regalia charging across a field on a crisp spring morning, through to the sometimes grisly black and white photos provided by the anti hunt lobby.
I think I fall into the "pro fox hunting" group, and I say that because I can't think of any real reason to get all steamed up about it. I don't see anything wrong with it; we've been doing it (hell, practically every country with foxes has) for hundreds of years and it's been (from what I can see) a part of the rural fabric that makes up our countryside and it's traditions.
Naturally the anti-foxhunting crowd say it's cruel, and have a theory or explanation to debunk any pro-foxhunter's justification. I've no doubt it is cruel in some way, it's just that I don't really care.
So I'm somewhat bemused as to why fox hunting is now on the same level of perception as say, the war on terror. Surely the latter is one hell of a lot more important?
What about you guys? pro, pro by default, anti, what? Since it seems to be the issue de jour at the moment, might as well have a e-straw-poll of sorts!

22 comments:

  1. Couldn't give a flying fuck.
    Never mind the BBC dumbing down, parliament apparently is doing likewise. It's insulting such a facile issue merits any lengthy debates in the UK houses of Parliament.
    But it's probably part of the fabric which makes up the UK's traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not pro or anti really but there's no way I think that we should be banning it. It's just the chief symptom of this bleeding-heart interfering ignorant city-dweller driven democracy that we have. It's just fucking crazy for people to be telling these people what to do given it's just so fucking trivial.
    I have no love for the whole animal lover lobby either. These wankers appear to care more about the cute and fluffy (notice the ones they care about are always cute and fluffy) more than they do human beings.
    But yeah I guess the ultimate insult of this whole fox-hunting lobby is how it's getting more parliament time than Iraq, our potential joining of the Euro and other things which actually fucking matter.
    It's depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You know of course that if it were possible to genetically create an evil critter that only existed to eat the heads of sleeping babies for pleasure, there would STILL be a group to defend it's rights and protect it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really dont get animal rights. Can someone explain the differance in lifevalue between termites, rats and cute seals? Full leather upholstery, because keeping my ass comfortable is more important than the life of a cow. Ph34r.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The animal rights lot are being taken for a ride, it's a classist Labour agenda. The Government can go fuck themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've heard some folks call it that but is it really? I think it's just one of those soft-touch agendas. What you do is fine something which you know the majority wants shot of and then do it - just so you're seen as being on the same side as the public. I deeply suspect foxhunting issue was dreamed up by labour spin doctors and had nothing to do with a genuine democratic process.
    Because while most of the fluffy bunny loving city dwelling fucktards which want hunting banned are *for* the ban, I doubt they thought to demand it before now.
    I see the Beeb appears to be slanting to the pro-ban lobby with some rather suspect and sensationalist coverage of some memos which the honchos at the pro lobby have had leaked. Nothing seems unreasonable to me. Crazy how they're whining about these folks protesting versus the animal-lover scumbags who intimidate entire villages into dropping support for animal testing projects via extremely vile means.
    Classic case that. These fuckwits would rather humans died of cancer than use animals to test medicine. I think it should be considers treason against the human race, a tower offense no?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think a lot of the problem here is that its not just fox hunting. As far as I'm concerned and I'm sure anyone else who's been woken up by foxes mating they can hunt them as much is required.
    But I for one am glad that this ban also includes Stag hunting, I can not for the life of me see why they need to be culled. If there is a fair enough reason for it then please let me know. I always got the feeling that this was purely trophy hunting so have no time for it. Of course the ban will also affect a large number of humans.
    I really don't know where I stand.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't personally go for trophy hunting either but again, what business is it of mine to ban it? What's happening is that the majority of the population are dictating what pastimes they find acceptable. This is just not right because as we know, the simple majority have no fucking affinity whatsoever for those which live in the countryside.
    I have a huge amount of sympathy for country folks who have protested on various subjects in London.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is another of these debates that to me has done the whipcrack from over reaction to over backlash.
    What I disagree with the Countryside Alliance call and this weeks trendy soundbite is that people who are not "country people" (whatever the fuck that means) shouldn't be allowed to have a democratic vote (via elected representatives or otherwise) on "country issues". This is indeed what they're saying.
    I don't live in Newcastle - does that mean I should have a view on national policy affecting it? Am I in someway, due to a life of generally (but not wholly) city-living too incomprehending to vote on the issues of deforrestation, damming, hedgerow maintenance, BSE, postal service provision, rural transport?
    If we have to let's state it for the record readers - lack of direct connection or association and yes even stupidity is not a disembarment of the right to vote.
    So what's the thing about the reason we can't have an opion on fox hunting? The Countryside Alliance argument that you can't is simply total farcical arse.

    So my personal position; the Countryside Alliance line that "City Folk" don't understand "Country Folk" is a farcical, laughable, specious bunch of bollocks which has a pretty poor place in the history of debates about the sufferage in general. NOT because of the subject (which is serious) but because of the ludicrousness of this 'localised suffrage' concept.

    What does the average person understand about the complexitites of running the NHS or pension schemes or Education or anything else? Absolutely nothing. But we vote on the principles with universal majority sufferage.
    This is just the same - people are voting on the principle of allowing hunting. Whether that's right or wrong is up to the population to decide but don't start telling me you need a special qualification or understanding to express your opinion! Bzzzt go back to 101 Democracy - hand in your pass saying "got diverted by argument-specific compelling but total bollocks"

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that's fucking nonsense quite frankly. You can have opinion you like but the problem is with society at the moment is the Ban This Sick Filth culture going on. Oh no the poor animals are getting hurt! Oh my god you mean this sausauge used to be an ANIMAL?! You've got people with their own set of values that may as well be in a different country, outnumbering, outvoicing and ultimately fucking over people they've never met, that don't understand their culture, their pasttimes, the history, nothing.
    Your belaboured point about how the average person doesn't understand the NHS isn't much of a point. The average person doesn't vote on how the NHS is run, they just get promised that party X is going to run it better, honest. Vote for me! Entirely different kettle of fish to some fuckers sitting in a glass tower during work hours going and banning a hundreds-of-years-old tradition because some smelly touchy feely liberal wanker has told them that foxes suffer TERRIBLE don't you know Mrs Reeves, the poor criters have hours to contemplate the entire short span of their cruelly cut off short and fluffy lives.
    What we need, Mrs Reeves, is clear. We must teach these backwards country folk a lesson and BAN THIS SICK FILTH.
    There is no debate. There is no considered democratic process. The entire issue was pulled up in front of the great unwashed and cluefree public by those with an agenda. That's democracy broken, that is. I'm not some massive believer in the fact that democracy always works either - this is a pretty prime case. Why aren't we debating shit that affects peoples LIVES and not the fucking comfort of a few foxes? Why aren't we? Because the people who decide the issues which are put before our great democratic process, choose issues as far away from their political failings as possible and which - after some cold and cynical analysis - will end up with a result which meets their agendas.
    That's exactly what's happened here. Failing of democracy process and people interferring with shit they don't know fucking shit about. Same could be said for a lot of subjects incidentally, such as GM crops, embryonic stem cell research. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one. But at the end of the day sometimes you hope there's rather more thought going into policy than randomly asking people off the street who can't even fucking spell the subjects under discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The whole point for me is that politics really shouldnt dictate peoples lives. Hunting this animal doesnt hurt any humans, case closed. Any rules around it should be about limits so that the species doesnt get extinct (probably not needed since most hunters knows, and cares, more about the nature in their areas than anyone else). Lurks point is valid, we really cant have a society where laws are founded on likes and dislikes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I made it pretty clear that what I objected to was the principle that the Countryside Alliance was espousing - that they're more qualified to opine on whether something should or shouldn't be the case and that to me is wrong as a general principle. I also deliberately didn't voice my own view on fox hunting to underline that it's the argument that is specious and it's got nothing to do with the issue.
    Should the politicians take input from the populace on issues? Errr yes. I don't think many governments last for very long by not doing that. Should they take extensive professional advice on subjects to make sure they've received extensive opinions and allocate MP's into special groups with responsibility for getting a proper understanding before putting it to the vote? Absolutely.
    You want to have your opinion on the Iraq War, Price of Petrol, Length of Custodial Sentence for Maxine Carr, human cloning, the EU, cruelty to animals in your society or any number of issues and have it reflected in the government? Well that's the option you got and there'd be uproar if you couldn't comment on issues and voters opinions didn't have influence. Should politicians pander so much to the voters hell no - there's all sorts of nanny state, vigilante, plain dumb public movements.
    What I was arguing was that the CA argument that people are disbarred from commenting because of their geographic location is untenable. I could, if I chose to, get very informed on this like every other topic above and it's preposterous that anyone should be locked out of a public debate because of where they live.
    Do I have an opinion on it? Not really. I just can't get worked up about it and I think between the bleeding heart liberals and the don't give a stuff House of Lords it's two fairly disgraceful prejudiced sides whacking ten bells out of each other. The message to both sides is don't try to win the argument with divisive separatist exclusionary classist geographist wonk!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've never been fox hunting and feel no affinity with people that do - nevertheless I feel very strongly in favour of keeping foxhunting on the basis of:
    1) Don’t fuck about with long standing traditions and cultures of this wonderful and unique country.
    2) Its got fuck all to do with foxes and everything to do with class (and perceived votes - I don’t see New Labour talking about banning fishing).
    3) Live and let live!
    Errrr....thats it :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zactly the same way I feel (only without the facial products).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, we've always done it, let's keep on, keeping on!
    Hopefully someone is still keeping alive the traditional sports of bear baiting and cock fighting, eh readers? I'd hate for those to die out too.
    Personally, I like the way the pro-hunters spin has changed from pest control to perserving country jobs. Is it because that foxes, left to their own devices, didn't rape and pillage our beautiful farms and livestock during Foot and Mouth?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, cock fighting is historical, yes it is cruel to the animal involved, but unlike a fox hunt it certainly is not a British tradition, it is not an accepted part of farming/countryside life, and you certainly do not get Pikey travelling folk putting a put a pack of hounds in with a fox in an enclosed space and gambling on the 'victor'.
    Bear-baiting died out a long time ago, and again that's about cheap fun at the expense of an abused imprisoned animal. Clearly that's not acceptable, even where it is still not uncommon eg. Russia or the Far East. Go talk to the namby-pamby animal cruelty lot about it.
    If you think fox hunting is a case of humans abusing an animal for callous cheap bloody entertainment, you're wrong, and it makes you sound like then ultimate bandwagon townie.
    Dunno what the hell you mean about F&M.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, F&M, not the well known lads mag, meant they couldn't fox hunt for what, 18 months? Did the fox population spiral out of control? Where chickens being brutally slaughtered in their beds? No.
    Come to think of it, did all these people we hear about who make their livelihood from providing backup services to hunts go out of business?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The difference is, rather than looking after the hounds and the horses in their stables for 18 months, now the hounds and horses have to go forever.
    Also, I suspect the farmhand types were very much needed by Mr. Farmer to forklift the carcasses...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it's crazy people should have to defend it. I think you should say why in fuck it should be banned. Why should the onus be on defence here? Just because you've got fuck all to care about appart from the welbeing of a cute cuddly fox, that's the entire reason to destroy a British tradition?
    I'm well aware of the fact that many in the pro hunt lobby have spouted the most astouding justification bollocks, such as pest control and safeguarding jobs. For me it's something simpler. It's a bit symtpom of this horendous intefering nanny state gone mad.
    If you want to see where this country is going, visit Malaysia. That's the UK in ten years time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. these fox hounds that the pro-hunt lobby are so keen to protect - you do know they just put them down when they are about 4 years old, because they are too old to hunt ?

    ReplyDelete
  21. He said cock-fighting....
    Snyukkkkk, hurrr hurrrr hurrrr.....

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think they are just planning to ban hunting with dogs aren't they? They aren't banning the meeting up at the weekend to drink champagne from hip-flasks, titting around with a red jacket on and a monocle astride as a glassy-eyed dinosaur are they?

    ReplyDelete