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

As a light-hearted aside, there was a nice piece in this morning's paper about a political correspondent in Parliament, who had set her ring tone to be the call of the hunt, and was enjoying the terrified looks on MPs faces every time her 'phone rang.

Does the fact that I am anti- the antis rather than actively pro- mean that I am no more than a fellow traveller, KA?

Kelli, I do want to find out more about what has happened in Scotland. So many of my concerns are based on the rural economy that the Scottish experience might sooth my fevered brow a little.

B

I dunno to be honest guv'. I'm just here to provide balance

And beer!



B

Oh yeah never a shortage of that. Which reminds me, must sort out East Midlands meet.

Can we coincide it with a hunt meet, too?

B

I've been thinking about this overnight, and this morning. Here are some conclusions I came to;

1) The figures Mort supplied suggested that there is a genuine argument for Hunting as a form of pest control. 14, 000 odd foxes a year is a significant dent to the population.

2) The alternatives may be worse. Gasing is moronic and far more inhumane than hunting. Recent evidence suggests that the idiots with the guns can't tell the difference between a bi-pidal teenager and a quadriped canine.

3) This Bill is being offered as redmeat to a bankbench that is baying for blood. Blair didn't even bother to vote. This government has no heart for the fight.

4) The Chief Constables have made it plain they do not have the manpower to enforce the law, nor indeed any great enthusiasm for what they perceive as a bad law.

5) Far too much time and effort is being expended on a matter about which, as Richard Littlejohn stated this morning, the majority of the country doesn't give a toss. Using the Parliament Act to force through something this petty is absurd, as pointed out by Polly Toynbee in todays Grauniad. There are other more important issues than fox hunting which the Government could usefully turn it's mind to.

6) I, personally, have more than likely been guilty of letting my personal prejudice against pro-hunt people I have met in a professional capacity cloud my judgement on this issue. Just because I dislike hunters isn't a good reason for banning it.

So i join (for the first time ever, and probably the last) the Littlejohn school of thinking. In actuality I don't give a toss about the hunt. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to let them get on with it.

Which is subtly different to saying I am pro-hunt, or anti-anti's.

Indeed it is. But an honest, and indeed admirable position nonetheless.

I'm not so connected to this because I don't live in the UK, but here's an international perspective on pest animals and civil liberties.

Here in Australia (and please don't take this as post-colonial bashing, it's the truth) we have foxes because the British bought them here. For the hunt. This has caused a disaster in the Australian ecology, with many species (especially small marsupial predators) going extinct or nearing extinction because of foxes (and cats, and farmland, and feral pigs... but that's a side issue). So I don't have an issue with killing foxes here in Australia, because they are not native. Are foxes native in the UK? If they're not, aren't they pests that should be eradicated as quickly and humanely as possible? If they are, then is it a matter of control, which everyone has been talking about?

Here in Australia, we have to control our fox population too. But we don't have the traditional fox hunt (at least here in WA). So we bait them with 1080 poison. I'm not so sure what damage this does to the small predators that might also be eating the baits, but as far as I remember, the poison (1080) doesn't affect them. It does poison dogs, which is why 1080 areas are all clearly marked on maps, signposted and advertised in the media. We also have fox shooting in the eastern states, which is done as humanely as possible (though not out of care for the fox, but for the fur industry). Would this work in the UK?

On the civil liberties issue, this doesn't come up with foxes, but with guns. In Tasmania, in the '90's we had a tragic massacre of people by a man armed with automatic and semi-automatic shot guns. Since then, several types of guns have been banned. This was a huge issue here, because many farmers and sporting shooters and other people (almost all from rural australia) were (in some cases literally) up in arms about this 'attack on their civil liberties'. My view is that the ban was patently ridiculous, because it simply drove those who were always going to ignore the law further underground, and those who would normally obey the law into making, often rash, protests.
But it's been at least five years now, and everyone has quietened down (except for those incapable of doing so). Asked about the ban now, most would say 'it was for the best', or even 'maybe it wasn't such a disaster'.

Do you think that people are going to adapt to the ban?

Ami of zx

Morning folks!

B I think JAB should just be ignored out of hand, not really contributing to our nice adult discussion here.

Ben, I don't know how the spending is spread, I would hope more or less evenly per head with concessions to impoverished areas, but assuming it is spent thus (until I see evidence to the contrary), then if rural communities are simply too small to support services on that amount of money then what can you do?

It certainly feels harsh to say tough, move to a town if you can't afford it, but the same thing happens to people who grew up in London and can't afford to live there now.

Admittedly you care about the rural economy whereas I'd be quite happy for nature to take it all back.

I agree with the first 5 points in post 167.

I had actually doubted that fox hunting was a reasonable form of pest control and had expected the pro hunt site to overestimate the number of foxes killed but the real figure according the government enquiry is 21,000 plus. So on that note I agree that it must be having some effect on controlling the population.

As for drag hunting - it doesn't need to be a case of replacing one with the other since (according to those that take part) it is not the same sport ie drag is a straight ride, hunting is circular etc

I must really be oversimplyfying things in my head as I do not see why the pomp and ceromony of the hunt cannot continue as is, same community event. As has been said by most that it is the fun and the taking part for the hunters (rather than the fox who is only important to the farmers - again simplified!).

It can be argued that part of rural life is being taken away, but it only need be one aspect of the hunt that changes - the dead fox and the hounds.

That does leave other problems - pest control and fallen livestock, but those can be worked out... eventually.

Seperate the pest control issue from the hunt as a community event and work on how the new ruling will affect each individually. Then, rather than take both issues down the same path with a solution that suits neither, find one that is good for each.

Michael Portillo was saying how Blair has left it too late and shouldn't have let this drag on. His heart isn't in it and he is in the worst of both worlds. And more importantly TB doesn't like the fact that there are naughty people shouting - it is not good for his image as squeaky clean, big smile, Mr Blair.

As they showed VT of Mr Ferry jr 'storming' the parliament, Michael Stipe (REM) laughingly said "There will always be an England"

Yes - thats what's so worrying.

Ach, if there were simple and equitable answers, Bouncy, they'd have been implemented by now.

I am torn between having limited respect but a certain sympathy for luddites, and no respect at all for ignorant and prejudiced legislators.

My feeling about the rural working class is that they are now an ethnic minority group, in the same way that other groups in our society are ethnic minorities. ("Ethnic" means "concerning nations or races", btw, it does not mean "black, asian or coloured"). They are also on the receiving end of discrimination, some of it accidental, a lot of it economic and some of it legislated. A lot of the discrimination comes into the category of 'shit happens', of course. However a lot of the the rural working class, and indeed a lot of the rural upper class, are also bigoted rednecks. Being discriminated against doesn't make you a nicer person.

Where this thought takes me, I am not sure. Dunno if it is even particularly helpful.

Ben

>> "There will always be an England"

This whole thing, combined with the Fathers for Justice incidents and the bloke who got into Windsor Castle, make me feel that I am living in a pantomime or a nursury rhyme.

"I'm the King of the Castle
and you're the dirty rascal!"

It would be cute if it wasn't also pathetic and rather disturbing.

Incidentally - a pal of mine pointed out that that if the hunt guys who invaded the House of Commons had friends inside, then the friends inside must have been mightily pissed off to provide the help. She also pointed out that the chances of an Al Qaeda terrorist now, or a member of the IRA in the 1980s, having such a friend inside are almost nil. And she finally pointed out that all they did when they got there is point the finger and shout a bit.

I quite like it that something happened three days ago which has not happened for 360+ years.

Was anyone else saddened, nauseated, but not actually surprised by the small numbers of MPs in the House for this 'key' debate?

B

Ethnic *actually* means non-christian. But it doesn't affect your agrument any...

s Advocate

The debate wasn't key. The vote was. Most policticians presumably knew there are better things to do than actually attend the debate for a foregone conclusion. Hopefully they were doing something worthwhile with the time rather than adding to the hot air in the Chamber...

On the central question of civil liberties:

This is NOT a question of civil liberties. We do not have a written constitution, we do not AFAIK have a charter of guaranteed rights. And even if we did, the right to chase a fox with a pack of dogs would be unlikely to appear in them.

It used to be a "civil liberty" in this country that responsible adults were allowed to own and operate assault weapons. That right was withdrawn from responsible, law abiding adults because of the behaviour of a single individual, Michael Ryan. It used to be a "civil liberty" in this country that responsible adults were permitted to own and operate handguns. That right was withdrawn from responsible, law-abiding adults because of the behaviour of a single individual, Thomas Hamilton.

One might, if one were so inclined, bemoan the withdrawal of these previously held "rights" and complain about restriction of civil liberties.

We used to have a lot of rights, but as time progresses, and civilisation grows up, there are more and more things we no longer deem acceptable.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

There are a number of women posting to this thread. Consider: until relatively recently, if I was married to you, I would have the RIGHT to rape you. Specifically, there would, until relatively recently, have been no legal mechanism for you as my wife to complain of rape. Your marriage certificate would be evidence of consent.

Now: my civil liberties as a man have been infringed, have they not, by removing that right from me?

Got any sympathy?

Times change. Society's attitudes change. And despite ALL the effects, which the prohunt lobby have had plenty of time over the last seven years to communicate to the public, the public is still in favour of a complete ban on foxhunting. Yes, it is restricting the activities of a minority. No, it is not a civil liberties issue. It is a civilisation issue.

H.

Funny you should mention handguns Hoo.

I have just spent half an hour restitching one of the seams on my PC bag. Not an obvious link there, but I had used it last summer to hold a couple of gas-powered 9mm pisols, and locked it with a padlock for obvious reasons.

There was a problem with the key, and because the handguns concerned are illegal in this country, and not mine anyway, I had to unpick the stitching to get them out. I had no intention of being busted for trying to take them onto a 'plane.

It would be no surprise to learn that I had concerns at the time about the various phases of gun legislation in the UK.

The argument about the legality of marital rape doesn't hold up, and you know it.

Blues,

my copy of Chambers defines "Ethnic" as follows:

concerning nations or races: pertaining to gentiles or the heathen [very appropriate for the group I was describing ]: pertaining to the customs, dress, food, etc. ofaparticular racial group of cult: belonging to or pertaining to a particular racial group: foreign: exotic [hah!]: between or involving different racial groups.

It is immediately followed by a fab word for a difficult scrabble hand "ethnarch" which means a ruler or governor of a people.

B

Fair enough, yet another thing I was misinformed about at school.

Still not sure I agree with the argument though. They may be forgotten. They may be scorned, but they are not being treated as a different race.

And I happily retain the right to laugh and jeer at green wellied,tweed wearing buffoons who can't understand a ticket barrier on the underground. And indeed to misdirect them if they are fool enough to ask me for directions. I'll stay out of their countryside, both literally and metaphorically if they bloody well stay out of my city.

"The argument about the legality of marital rape doesn't hold up, and you know it."

I said I was being devil's advocate.

Care to explain WHY it doesn't hold up? A man used to have the right to sex with his wife. He no longer has. It's hard to see how a man's civil liberties can be any more intimately infringed than that.

H.