h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> And let's be honest, these are the same berks who try and stop anybody from crossing their land on designated footpaths stating that they are preserving the countryside for all and that they will break the law to carry on doing it whilst using every legal weapon in the book to stop others from living their lives. Gypsies near my land? Never!

Having been born in a house that had a right-of-way across the field below the house, and having bought a house with a right-of-way across its *garden*, I can say that I have NEVER EVER objected to people walking them. We maintained the footpath across the garden in good condition to make it easy to walk. If a footpath is a right of way, it is just that, a right of way. Not all footpaths are, hence the confusion.

I have no objection to Gypsies. I was wary of the urban travellers in the late 1990s, having been passed in the opposite direction by a convey a quarter of a mile long. But to be honest, Gypsies know infinitely more about living with the land by the age of five than I ever will.

>Cocks...are not now and never have been pests<

I lived in a rural community for 23 years (give or take). There are few things more pestilential than a cock crowing at five in the morning.

>Most people who were born in the country are having to live in towns. Myself included. I cannot afford £300k for a two bedroom cottage.<

This is a red herring. i can't afford that to live in Bexleyheath, either. House pricing in this country are a farce in both rural and urban areas.

*Stands well back *

This is one issue I'm undecided on. But I'm lurking.

Just so you know.

None of my comments about the contradicion in who is and who is not allowed to live their lives where aimed at any one person (as I'm pretty sure you knew). I'm sure you have a spotless record with regard to rights of way and Travellers. The fact remains that 'the landed gentry' (for want of a better term) have an appalling record when it comes to live and let live, yet expect the rest of us to condone their promise of illegal activity in pursuit of *their* chosen life style.

Maybe I've just known nice members of the landed gentry. I am fussy about my friendships, and don't base them on class or income. You get s**ts in all walks of life, and absolute honeys in all walks of life as well. I tend to avoid the s**ts, hence, possibly, my over roseate view of the landed gentry. I can't say I know many, these days.

Ben

So two wrongs make a right? The fact that some landowners, some of whom are hunters, are crap when it comes to allowing other people on their land, means that no hunters have a right to complain when their way of life/job/chosen leisure activity is threatened?

That strikes me as a case of 'well he did it first miss!'

House prices are high in many areas because many of the people who live in them actively oppose the building of new housing.

Just to clarify the protest issue, I don't think anyone here is saying that those in favour of hunting aren't entitled to protest and to campaign peacefully. The question is whether they are entitled to break the law, and if so, which laws they are entitled to break. For me, this is a much more interesting issue than what happens to some foxes.

As I said in post 11, civil disobedience has its place, but what happened yesterday (and what the Fuel Protesters did, and what Fathers for Justice have done) is disproportionate, dangerous, and unneccesarily disruptive. We just can't have a situation where anyone who has a grievance feels entitled to storm Parliament, block roads, attack police officers etc. I've no problem with legitimate political protest, demonstrations, campaiging etc.

There was something I heard on the radio yesterday that I thought would be interesting to share. The speaker (I can't remember who, but I suspect he was anti-hunting), said that all of the dogs involved would be killed sooner or later anyhow, as they are usually put down once they cease to be of any use to the hunt.

If that is true (and I personally do not know whether it is), then there must have been many hundreds or thousands of dog put down during the history of hunting. Why should be present crop be made a point of principle when Ill the others weren't? Is it because those involved feel they are being forced to do it, rather then it merely being a practicality?

If the claim is incorrect, then I apologise, but I just thought it was a point worth raising.


Geggs

'We just can't have a situation where anyone who has a grievance feels entitled to storm Parliament, block roads, attack police officers etc. I've no problem with legitimate political protest, demonstrations, campaiging etc.'

Maybe we ought to ask *why* people feel driven to use illegal protest methods. Is it just becasue they're stroppy attention-seeking gits, or is there an underlying feeling that teh present Government won't listen to peaceful protests?

Well so far none of them have been actively dangerous. We are not talking about activists like those Animal Rights protestors or Anti-Abortionists who terrorise, damage property, threaten livelihoods and even commit murder.

I had major issues with smoke-bombs and fireworks, which struck me as stupid and provocative.

I have to say that Fathers 4 Justice just make me laugh. I like their style. And anything which highlights the poor security of our national buildings in an essentially harmless way is better than having it highlighted by a suicide bomber.

I agreed with the fuel protesters, and respected them. The ensured fuel got to the emergency services, and it wasn't half quiet on the roads. I *loved* that one!

Ben

No, you're confusing the argument (something the fox hunting lobby like to do, in my experience). My point is this;

The fox hunting lobby have stated categorically that they will break the law and continue to hunt when the ban comes into effect in June 2006(?). They implicitly expect me to have sympathy with that stand point.

However, these very people are always the first to complain about life style choices of others that break the law. Travellers were an example that sprang instantly to mind.

Why should my sympathies be any greater for them breaking the law than they are for the guy who deals a bit of puff? (Who is essentially feeding a voluntary habit - a lifestyle choice.)

And I'd suggest the first day of the ban is going to be a bonus day for burglars, because the word will come out from that hunters that day will be a marked group, attracting huge amounts of police man power that won't be able to answer calls about burglary and violence.

>Maybe I've just known nice members of the landed gentry. I am fussy about my friendships, and don't base them on class or income. You get s**ts in all walks of life, and absolute honeys in all walks of life as well. I tend to avoid the s**ts, hence, possibly, my over roseate view of the landed gentry.<

I don't get the luxury of choosing who I meet in a professional capacity. I just get to meet whoever rolls through the courtroom as a defendant or a witness. I never met a fox hunter or follower who I liked. And i even had a grudging respect for 'Dodgy' Dave Courtenay - at least he knew he was a villain and didn't try and hide it.

Geggs, you are right. Hounds are put down when they are too old to hunt. You cannot rehome them like greyhounds.

But slaughtering the hounds, and ceasing to breed them, won't save the foxes.

What gets me is the illogic of saying a few hundred foxes a year are more important *in terms of animal rights* than 10,000 foxhounds.

What the eye don't see the brain don't get its head around. If I ran a kennel and had to oversee the slaughter of the hounds, I would dump the hounds' carcasses in Trafalgar Square.

Ben

>> However, these very people are always the first to complain about life style choices of others that break the law.

Are they? I simply don't know.

In my experience the rural middle classes are as prone to drug taking as any other group of their generation. The ones in their 60s drink scotch, the ones in their 40s smoke grass, the ones in their 20s do E, or whatever it is that kids in their 20s do these days.


>> I never met a fox hunter or follower who I liked.

Me neither, in that none of the people I like are fox hunters or followers. But I haven't met that many, certainly not as many as you have.


As I said. I don't hunt. I just get pissed off with the illogic of arguments which are presented as being morally whole and perfect.

>Maybe we ought to ask *why* people feel driven to use illegal protest methods. Is it just becasue they're stroppy attention-seeking gits, or is there an underlying feeling that teh present Government won't listen to peaceful protests?<

This has been a Labour Party election promise for the last two elections. people like my father voted labour in the last two elections because of that promise. The fox hunting lobby have had two elections to persuade enough people to vote against the Labour party that it wouldn't be enacted. they have failed. Spectacularly, I'd suggest.

This government is constantly being lambasted for not delivering on it's election promises. When it finally does so it is lambasted. Sounds a bit like stroppy git behaviour to me.

And where were these 'peaceful protests' yesterday? I saw a lot of people breaking the law and repeatedly charging the police who responded in kind. When i get hit with a asp, I back off, pretty sharpish. That lot kept on coming. i draw my own conclusions about the intelligence level involved there, i'm afraid.

>What the eye don't see the brain don't get its head around. If I ran a kennel and had to oversee the slaughter of the hounds, I would dump the hounds' carcasses in Trafalgar Square.<

Yup, you're right, London doesn't have enough problems with polution and disease already. let's dump thousands of rotting carcasses there as well. Capital idea! (Pun intended)

The thing about election promises is that I have never yet found a party all of whose policies I agree with.

Have you?

B

I've got to be honest, I still think the point is being missed here. This was an election promise, and it is only right that the thing is therefore carried out. That is, apparently the democratic will of the population of this country, the vast majority of whom voted for the present government (of those who bothered to vote).

Why is it considered morally right for these people to be able fly in the face of democracy? After all, when old Hooky Hamza speaks out on behalf of the minority he represents, he's dismissed as a dangerous lunatic and carted off to prison. What is the effective difference? Both he and the fox hunting lobby are advocating breaking the law in order that a minority can continue to behave in a way that the majority believe to be wrong.

I think there was some controversy over that 59% claim. I may have this wrong - will go and see if I can find a source - but I thought the survey asked three questions rather than two, with ban hunting at one extreme, for hunting at the other and a more neutral position in the middle. The 59% was the sum of those that didn't go for the ban hunting option.

Ben, you made some comment about not breeding from hunting hounds. If the hunting dogs are routinely slaughtered when they are no use to the hunt what difference does it make if they aren't replaced?

k

>>What gets me is the illogic of saying a few hundred foxes a year are more important *in terms of animal rights* than 10,000 foxhounds.

And what gets me, is that if the 10,000 foxhounds would be put down in the fullness of time anyway, then clearly the owners of the dogs don't care about their *animal rights*, so there is no balance to be struck. They aren't even casualities, since they would be killed eventually, anyway. Its just that the owners feel that they are being forced to kill the dogs a few years before when they normally would.

The only difference is timing, as far as I can see.


Geggs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3767729.stm

Here you go.

"Douglas Batchelor, the group's chief executive, called the poster "a cynical attempt to show a degree of public support for fox hunting that does not exist.

He added: "These inaccurate claims have been plastered all over the countryside in a blatant attempt to deceive the public."

The poll, conducted by NOP, showed 18% of respondents agreed "hunting should be allowed to continue because it is essentially a matter of civil liberties".

A further 41% said it should be allowed "under regulation", while 36% wanted it banned "because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties".

The ASA decided the questions were phrased in broad terms and that those who backed a regulated form of hunting "could have interpreted it in many ways and agreed with it for many different reasons". "

"because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties".

That is CLASSIC! Worthy of George orwell himself, or at the very least, Morton, the inventor of Morton's Fork...