Discussion:
Fox Hunting
(too old to reply)
Judith
2017-05-10 10:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.

Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
Norman Wells
2017-05-10 10:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
Judith
2017-05-10 11:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
kat
2017-05-10 12:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
--
kat
Post by Judith
^..^<
Brian Reay
2017-05-10 12:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
The same way as cats and dogs normally. Shall we allow hunts to chase and
kill those as well? It would solve the stray dog problem and encourage cat
owners who let their cats crap in other peoples' gardens?

I wouldn't support such a barbaric idea but you show signs of having that
blood lust which supports fox hunting, maybe you would.

Foxes hunt for food, they use the techniques that nature supplied them
with, they don't have the interlect, skill, etc to develop humans methods
or even consider being vegetarian.

We have the ability to be more civilised. I've no issue with eating animals
or killing vermin. I do have a issue with animal cruelty and/or negligent.
I'm not a pet owner, not least as I don't think I could guarantee to ensure
it got the attention etc it needed- we travel a lot. Those who own pets
should be responsible for them, sadly some don't step up to the job:

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/10283785.Popley_man_who_left_his_pet_in_filthy_kitchen_is_banned_from_keeping_dogs/
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They are
depriving those in real need! https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
burfordTjustice
2017-05-10 14:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 12:28:40 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Brian Reay
Post by kat
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:26:30 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing
wild animals in the most horrific way: they being attacked and
torn limb by limb until they die: despite that at the last count
a clear majority of he public were against the repeal of the Fox
Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It
doesn't affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and
stable British People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or
even influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering
Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral
standards and do not wish to see wild animals abused and
effectively tortured and torn to death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
The same way as cats and dogs normally. Shall we allow hunts to chase
and kill those as well? It would solve the stray dog problem and
encourage cat owners who let their cats crap in other peoples'
gardens?
I wouldn't support such a barbaric idea but you show signs of having
that blood lust which supports fox hunting, maybe you would.
Foxes hunt for food, they use the techniques that nature supplied them
with, they don't have the interlect, skill, etc to develop humans
methods or even consider being vegetarian.
We have the ability to be more civilised. I've no issue with eating
animals or killing vermin. I do have a issue with animal cruelty
and/or negligent. I'm not a pet owner, not least as I don't think I
could guarantee to ensure it got the attention etc it needed- we
travel a lot. Those who own pets should be responsible for them,
http://www.basingst
Fox Stew is Delicious!!
Handsome Jack
2017-05-10 14:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by kat
How do you think foxes find their food?
The same way as cats and dogs normally. Shall we allow hunts to chase and
kill those as well?
Not if they are owned and cared for by their owners. That's the
difference that disposes of that argument.
Post by Brian Reay
It would solve the stray dog problem and encourage cat
owners who let their cats crap in other peoples' gardens?
I wouldn't support such a barbaric idea but you show signs of having that
blood lust which supports fox hunting, maybe you would.
I support people's freedom to hunt foxes.
Post by Brian Reay
Foxes hunt for food, they use the techniques that nature supplied them
with, they don't have the interlect, skill, etc to develop humans methods
or even consider being vegetarian.
We have the ability to be more civilised. I've no issue with eating animals
or killing vermin. I do have a issue with animal cruelty and/or negligent.
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
--
Jack
Yellow
2017-05-11 12:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Brian Reay
Post by kat
How do you think foxes find their food?
The same way as cats and dogs normally. Shall we allow hunts to chase and
kill those as well?
Not if they are owned and cared for by their owners. That's the
difference that disposes of that argument.
Post by Brian Reay
It would solve the stray dog problem and encourage cat
owners who let their cats crap in other peoples' gardens?
I wouldn't support such a barbaric idea but you show signs of having that
blood lust which supports fox hunting, maybe you would.
I support people's freedom to hunt foxes.
Post by Brian Reay
Foxes hunt for food, they use the techniques that nature supplied them
with, they don't have the interlect, skill, etc to develop humans methods
or even consider being vegetarian.
We have the ability to be more civilised. I've no issue with eating animals
or killing vermin. I do have a issue with animal cruelty and/or negligent.
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
AndyW
2017-05-12 06:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.

Andy
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 07:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be of any concern. People are
entitled to be as inefficient as they like.

Anyway, if foxes are going to be killed as vermin or predators on
livestock, I'd have thought the anti-hunting lobby would be quietly
pleased with the inefficiency of it all. 30 people, 30 horses, 100
dogs, all occupied for hours on end in the possible but not guaranteed
pursuit and elimination of a single fox? You'd hope that any of your
opponents in anything was that inefficient, wouldn't you?
Yellow
2017-05-12 09:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be of any concern. People are
entitled to be as inefficient as they like.
Anyway, if foxes are going to be killed as vermin or predators on
livestock, I'd have thought the anti-hunting lobby would be quietly
pleased with the inefficiency of it all. 30 people, 30 horses, 100
dogs, all occupied for hours on end in the possible but not guaranteed
pursuit and elimination of a single fox? You'd hope that any of your
opponents in anything was that inefficient, wouldn't you?
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 09:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be of any concern. People are
entitled to be as inefficient as they like.
Anyway, if foxes are going to be killed as vermin or predators on
livestock, I'd have thought the anti-hunting lobby would be quietly
pleased with the inefficiency of it all. 30 people, 30 horses, 100
dogs, all occupied for hours on end in the possible but not guaranteed
pursuit and elimination of a single fox? You'd hope that any of your
opponents in anything was that inefficient, wouldn't you?
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
Yellow
2017-05-12 10:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be of any concern. People are
entitled to be as inefficient as they like.
Anyway, if foxes are going to be killed as vermin or predators on
livestock, I'd have thought the anti-hunting lobby would be quietly
pleased with the inefficiency of it all. 30 people, 30 horses, 100
dogs, all occupied for hours on end in the possible but not guaranteed
pursuit and elimination of a single fox? You'd hope that any of your
opponents in anything was that inefficient, wouldn't you?
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
Why do you keep asking questions that I have already answered?
Judith
2017-05-12 11:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be of any concern. People are
entitled to be as inefficient as they like.
Anyway, if foxes are going to be killed as vermin or predators on
livestock, I'd have thought the anti-hunting lobby would be quietly
pleased with the inefficiency of it all. 30 people, 30 horses, 100
dogs, all occupied for hours on end in the possible but not guaranteed
pursuit and elimination of a single fox? You'd hope that any of your
opponents in anything was that inefficient, wouldn't you?
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
It's called democracy - obviously not your forte.

Are you perhaps a Tory voter?
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 11:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
It's called democracy - obviously not your forte.
Should I have a say in what toothpaste you use? Or where you go at
weekends?

if not, why not? It's called democracy, isn't it?
Yellow
2017-05-12 11:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
It's called democracy - obviously not your forte.
Should I have a say in what toothpaste you use? Or where you go at
weekends?
if not, why not? It's called democracy, isn't it?
If your position is so strong, why are you resorting to a stupid
argument to support it?
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 12:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
It's called democracy - obviously not your forte.
Should I have a say in what toothpaste you use? Or where you go at
weekends?
if not, why not? It's called democracy, isn't it?
If your position is so strong, why are you resorting to a stupid
argument to support it?
I asked you a relevant question that goes to the heart of what we've
been discussing.

If you have no answer, just say.
Yellow
2017-05-12 19:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the question is why you should have
a say in what other people do.
It's called democracy - obviously not your forte.
Should I have a say in what toothpaste you use? Or where you go at
weekends?
if not, why not? It's called democracy, isn't it?
If your position is so strong, why are you resorting to a stupid
argument to support it?
I asked you a relevant question that goes to the heart of what we've
been discussing.
If you have no answer, just say.
If your position is so strong, why are you resorting to a stupid
argument to support it?

Judith
2017-05-12 11:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 May 2017 10:25:59 +0100, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Yellow
As I keep on telling you (but you are now entrenched in troll mode), it
is the cruelty of fox hunting that is the issue.
Norman cannot understand that simple and correct statement.
Yellow
2017-05-12 09:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <LWcRA.118412$***@fx40.am4>, ***@nojunqmail.com
says...
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
It is a very weak argument but along with "you are just jealous" it the
best we ever get to justify the practice of fox hunting.
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 09:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
says...
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
It is a very weak argument but along with "you are just jealous" it the
best we ever get to justify the practice of fox hunting.
No. The real justification is that, although it's a little bit cruel to
vermin, a lot of people find it great fun and see no reason why
interfering busybodies unaffected by it should have any say in what they do.
Yellow
2017-05-12 10:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
says...
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
It is a very weak argument but along with "you are just jealous" it the
best we ever get to justify the practice of fox hunting.
No. The real justification is that, although it's a little bit cruel to
vermin, a lot of people find it great fun and see no reason why
interfering busybodies unaffected by it should have any say in what they do.
That is just a rewording of the "you are just jealous" position.
Judith
2017-05-12 10:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AndyW
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Actually, foxes that are not killed by hunters will suffer far more
dreadful deaths in the course of nature, from chronic parasitic
infections, hunger or cold. Killing them quickly is doing them a favour,
even if the method of killing is not pleasant to watch.
Another one of "those arguments" - we are doing it for the fox's own
good. :-(
To be fair this is a valid arguement for hunting in general. Since we
removed the apex predators that culled the slow, weak and vulnerable
then the herd/family goes into winter with too many animals and
outstrips the food source leaving all the members weak and unable to
fight infection or parasites.
However, as an arguement for fox hunting on horseback with hounds it is
fairly weak since it takes an entire hunt to maybe catch a fox per
weekend. Better to do the job with a rifle at dusk.
Andy
But there is no fun in that.
Vidcapper
2017-05-10 14:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
Foxes have no sense of right or wrong
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Jeff
2017-05-11 08:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by kat
How do you think foxes find their food?
Foxes have no sense of right or wrong
Indeed but foxes do kill for sport, and not just food.

Jeff
burfordTjustice
2017-05-11 18:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:00:07 +0100
Post by Vidcapper
Foxes have no sense of right or wrong
Nor do muslims
Graham T
2017-05-10 15:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
They eat Muckdonalds etc waste thrown on the ground by Humans.
kat
2017-05-10 17:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graham T
Post by kat
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
They eat Muckdonalds etc waste thrown on the ground by Humans.
That's a city fox.
Country foxes don't have that pleasure. If it is a pleasure!
--
kat
Post by Graham T
^..^<
Judith
2017-05-11 19:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
How do you think foxes find their food?
Chase it in a pack with a Tally-Ho crew throwing one off as they get excited?
Norman Wells
2017-05-10 14:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
They won't see it, just as you and the vast majority of others here have
never seen it. Hunting hardly ever happens in Hackney.

Be honest, it's a class thing. The riff-raff see hunting as toff sport
and they can possibly get one over on them if they can get it banned.
Never mind that they've never seen it, never participated in it, and
never been affected by it, they think they should have a say in it.
Well, with respect, I disagree. Decisions should be made by those
affected. Everyone else should mind their own business.
Altroy1
2017-05-10 19:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by Norman Wells
Be honest, it's a class thing. The riff-raff see hunting as toff sport
and they can possibly get one over on them if they can get it banned.
Never mind that they've never seen it, never participated in it, and
never been affected by it, they think they should have a say in it.
Well, with respect, I disagree. Decisions should be made by those
affected. Everyone else should mind their own business.
Nonsense. Cockfighting was banned. I suspect that kind of "sport" was
favoured by many city dwellers, not just toffs in the country. Also
banned is bear-baiting and badger-baiting. One reason might be is that
mistreatment and cruelty to animals can link to mistreatment of
fellow-humans.
Yellow
2017-05-11 12:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
They won't see it, just as you and the vast majority of others here have
never seen it. Hunting hardly ever happens in Hackney.
Not all hunts are based in a quaint English village and this is just one
in my neck of the woods that we are all exposed to -

http://www.crawleyandhorshamhunt.co.uk/

I currently live just outside of a city, but can see the sea in one
direction and The Downs in the other so you do not need to live in a
quaint little English village to experience fox hunting or live outside
of one to have no personal experience.

I first saw a hunt when I was a kid and we were in Devon - it shocked me
to my boots. I also have the misfortune to experience one of the major
hunts when I visit my in-laws.
Post by Norman Wells
Be honest, it's a class thing.
No - it is an animal welfare thing. I am against any sport that, at its
core, rips animals to pieces.

I am also against bull fighting, bear bating, hare coursing and cock
fighting.
Post by Norman Wells
The riff-raff see hunting as toff sport
and they can possibly get one over on them if they can get it banned.
This is simply a childish defence to justify the continuing existence of
the sport.

How about arguing for it on its merits instead?
Post by Norman Wells
Never mind that they've never seen it, never participated in it, and
never been affected by it, they think they should have a say in it.
Certainly I have never participated in one but you think that gives me
no right to an opinion on the practice?
Post by Norman Wells
Well, with respect, I disagree. Decisions should be made by those
affected. Everyone else should mind their own business.
We are all entitled to our opinions and according to the current poll on
YouGov, the very vast majority of the UK agree with me rather than you
but I do fear it is something the Tories are going to use their
unopposed power to to restore.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 14:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
How about the population at large (except Tories) have some moral standards and
do not wish to see wild animals abused and effectively tortured and torn to
death.
They won't see it, just as you and the vast majority of others here have
never seen it. Hunting hardly ever happens in Hackney.
Not all hunts are based in a quaint English village and this is just one
in my neck of the woods that we are all exposed to -
http://www.crawleyandhorshamhunt.co.uk/
I currently live just outside of a city, but can see the sea in one
direction and The Downs in the other so you do not need to live in a
quaint little English village to experience fox hunting or live outside
of one to have no personal experience.
I first saw a hunt when I was a kid and we were in Devon - it shocked me
to my boots. I also have the misfortune to experience one of the major
hunts when I visit my in-laws.
You were shocked by the sight of a group of people on horses?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Be honest, it's a class thing.
No - it is an animal welfare thing. I am against any sport that, at its
core, rips animals to pieces.
Cats do that catching mice. Dogs do that catching rats.

They do it anyway. it's instinctive. It's natural.

It seems you're only against it because it's something that other people
enjoy.

And that doesn't seem very healthy to me.
Post by Yellow
I am also against bull fighting, bear bating, hare coursing and cock
fighting.
Post by Norman Wells
The riff-raff see hunting as toff sport
and they can possibly get one over on them if they can get it banned.
This is simply a childish defence to justify the continuing existence of
the sport.
How about arguing for it on its merits instead?
Post by Norman Wells
Never mind that they've never seen it, never participated in it, and
never been affected by it, they think they should have a say in it.
Certainly I have never participated in one but you think that gives me
no right to an opinion on the practice?
You can have whatever opinions you like about anything. What I'm
arguing is that you should have no influence over something that doesn't
affect you and yet gives others a lot of pleasure.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Well, with respect, I disagree. Decisions should be made by those
affected. Everyone else should mind their own business.
We are all entitled to our opinions and according to the current poll on
YouGov, the very vast majority of the UK agree with me rather than you
but I do fear it is something the Tories are going to use their
unopposed power to to restore.
It's not a matter for the general public to decide, but only those it
affects. I don't have a say in what toothpaste you use. Why should you
have a say in what other people do in their spare time?
Yellow
2017-05-11 15:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I first saw a hunt when I was a kid and we were in Devon - it shocked me
to my boots. I also have the misfortune to experience one of the major
hunts when I visit my in-laws.
You were shocked by the sight of a group of people on horses?
No.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Be honest, it's a class thing.
No - it is an animal welfare thing. I am against any sport that, at its
core, rips animals to pieces.
Cats do that catching mice. Dogs do that catching rats.
They do it anyway. it's instinctive. It's natural.
I notice that you do not say it is natural for a dog to chase a fox.
Post by Norman Wells
It seems you're only against it because it's something that other people
enjoy.
And that doesn't seem very healthy to me.
On that basis I would be against people eating tomatoes.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Certainly I have never participated in one but you think that gives me
no right to an opinion on the practice?
You can have whatever opinions you like about anything. What I'm
arguing is that you should have no influence over something that doesn't
affect you and yet gives others a lot of pleasure.
But it does affect me. It affects us all.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Well, with respect, I disagree. Decisions should be made by those
affected. Everyone else should mind their own business.
We are all entitled to our opinions and according to the current poll on
YouGov, the very vast majority of the UK agree with me rather than you
but I do fear it is something the Tories are going to use their
unopposed power to to restore.
It's not a matter for the general public to decide, but only those it
affects.
Actually, it is a matter for Parliament to decide.
Post by Norman Wells
I don't have a say in what toothpaste you use. Why should you
have a say in what other people do in their spare time?
I have an opinion on murder, rape and domestic abuse too.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 15:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
says...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I first saw a hunt when I was a kid and we were in Devon - it shocked me
to my boots. I also have the misfortune to experience one of the major
hunts when I visit my in-laws.
You were shocked by the sight of a group of people on horses?
No.
So what shocked you then? It's all you saw.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Be honest, it's a class thing.
No - it is an animal welfare thing. I am against any sport that, at its
core, rips animals to pieces.
Cats do that catching mice. Dogs do that catching rats.
They do it anyway. it's instinctive. It's natural.
I notice that you do not say it is natural for a dog to chase a fox.
If it comes across one I have no doubt it is. Dogs will chase anything,
even a tennis ball.
Post by Norman Wells
It seems you're only against it because it's something that other people
enjoy.
And that doesn't seem very healthy to me.
On that basis I would be against people eating tomatoes.
And if you're not, why are you against fox hunting which is another
activity other people enjoy that doesn't affect you?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Certainly I have never participated in one but you think that gives
me no right to an opinion on the practice?
You can have whatever opinions you like about anything. What I'm
arguing is that you should have no influence over something that doesn't
affect you and yet gives others a lot of pleasure.
But it does affect me. It affects us all.
No it doesn't. Not in any tangible way whatsoever.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Well, with respect, I disagree. Decisions should be made by those
affected. Everyone else should mind their own business.
We are all entitled to our opinions and according to the current poll on
YouGov, the very vast majority of the UK agree with me rather than you
but I do fear it is something the Tories are going to use their
unopposed power to to restore.
It's not a matter for the general public to decide, but only those it
affects.
Actually, it is a matter for Parliament to decide.
I thought you were complaining that it would!
Post by Norman Wells
I don't have a say in what toothpaste you use. Why should you
have a say in what other people do in their spare time?
I have an opinion on murder, rape and domestic abuse too.
Yes, but they could affect you directly. It is most unlikely that fox
hunting ever will.
Judith
2017-05-11 19:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
says...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I first saw a hunt when I was a kid and we were in Devon - it shocked me
to my boots. I also have the misfortune to experience one of the major
hunts when I visit my in-laws.
You were shocked by the sight of a group of people on horses?
No.
So what shocked you then? It's all you saw.
Oh - you witnessed it did you? I bet Yellow didn't realise that you attended
the same hunt.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 21:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
Post by Norman Wells
says...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I first saw a hunt when I was a kid and we were in Devon - it shocked me
to my boots. I also have the misfortune to experience one of the major
hunts when I visit my in-laws.
You were shocked by the sight of a group of people on horses?
No.
So what shocked you then? It's all you saw.
Oh - you witnessed it did you? I bet Yellow didn't realise that you attended
the same hunt.
No, it's what she said and later confirmed.
Ian Jackson
2017-05-10 11:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington
socialites?
From what I understand, it was simply one of her very minor acolytes
expressing his personal opinions, and is definitely NOT part of
Conservative policy.
--
Ian
Brian Reay
2017-05-10 12:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
I'm not a country dweller, I've been to Islington (not impressed), but I
certainly don't agree that fox hunting or other animal treatment matters
aren't a legitimate issue for me to influence.

I've no issue with controlling foxes by humane means but chasing them with
dogs while riding a horse etc and having them torn apart on the few
occasions a fox is caught, isn't humane control, it isn't even control. It
is blood thirsty, barbaric, cruelty.

The idea we should reverse the ban is disgraceful but I'm not surprised it
has come from May. She is a leftie pretending to be 'Tough', she can
hardly use her record as a Minister and we've yet to see her really stand
up to the EU.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They are
depriving those in real need! https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Norman Wells
2017-05-10 14:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
I'm not a country dweller, I've been to Islington (not impressed), but I
certainly don't agree that fox hunting or other animal treatment matters
aren't a legitimate issue for me to influence.
I've no issue with controlling foxes by humane means but chasing them with
dogs while riding a horse etc and having them torn apart on the few
occasions a fox is caught, isn't humane control, it isn't even control. It
is blood thirsty, barbaric, cruelty.
Just like life then, or at least life in the countryside. Soft living
in suburbia, where meat comes in plastic packs, has possibly sheltered
you from harsh reality a bit too much.

You'll find much less sentimentality in the countryside and much less
squeamishness about such things. They're not so cocooned there, and
they don't see that what they get up to well away from your prying eyes
has anything to do with you.

Nor do I.
Yellow
2017-05-11 12:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
I'm not a country dweller, I've been to Islington (not impressed), but I
certainly don't agree that fox hunting or other animal treatment matters
aren't a legitimate issue for me to influence.
I've no issue with controlling foxes by humane means but chasing them with
dogs while riding a horse etc and having them torn apart on the few
occasions a fox is caught, isn't humane control, it isn't even control. It
is blood thirsty, barbaric, cruelty.
Just like life then, or at least life in the countryside. Soft living
in suburbia, where meat comes in plastic packs, has possibly sheltered
you from harsh reality a bit too much.
Yep, that is the way to make a case for fox hunting - insult the people
who are against the sport.
Post by Norman Wells
You'll find much less sentimentality in the countryside and much less
squeamishness about such things. They're not so cocooned there, and
they don't see that what they get up to well away from your prying eyes
has anything to do with you.
We all know how meat gets on the table and it is never by chasing it to
exhaustion and then ripping it to pieces.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 14:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
I'm not a country dweller, I've been to Islington (not impressed), but I
certainly don't agree that fox hunting or other animal treatment matters
aren't a legitimate issue for me to influence.
I've no issue with controlling foxes by humane means but chasing them with
dogs while riding a horse etc and having them torn apart on the few
occasions a fox is caught, isn't humane control, it isn't even control. It
is blood thirsty, barbaric, cruelty.
Just like life then, or at least life in the countryside. Soft living
in suburbia, where meat comes in plastic packs, has possibly sheltered
you from harsh reality a bit too much.
Yep, that is the way to make a case for fox hunting - insult the people
who are against the sport.
I'm making the point that those who are not affected in the slightest
should keep their noses out. Most hardly ever see a fox. Even fewer
see a hunt. And hardly any ever see a fox being killed by one.

If it doesn't affect you directly, I don't see why you should have a say.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
You'll find much less sentimentality in the countryside and much less
squeamishness about such things. They're not so cocooned there, and
they don't see that what they get up to well away from your prying eyes
has anything to do with you.
We all know how meat gets on the table and it is never by chasing it to
exhaustion and then ripping it to pieces.
But you ignore the reality. It involves death and dismemberment. Bolts
through the head, electrocution in water baths, that sort of thing.
It's not pretty and you're generally well isolated from it. Those in
the countryside are much more down to earth. And to them foxes are
vermin like rats and mice. they just have cuter faces and better PR
with city folk.
Yellow
2017-05-11 15:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Yep, that is the way to make a case for fox hunting - insult the people
who are against the sport.
I'm making the point that those who are not affected in the slightest
should keep their noses out.
It affects us all.

But that aside - what makes fox hunting so special in your view that if
we do not participate we are not entitled to an opinion?
Post by Norman Wells
Most hardly ever see a fox.
That is a stupid statement - of course we all see foxes.
Post by Norman Wells
Even fewer see a hunt.
I have seen plenty and I assure you, I do not go looking.
Post by Norman Wells
And hardly any ever see a fox being killed by one.
Thank god, I have not seen the ripping and tearing to know how hunts
end.
Post by Norman Wells
If it doesn't affect you directly, I don't see why you should have a say.
But it does affect me. This is my country and what goes on here affects
me just as much as it affects you.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
You'll find much less sentimentality in the countryside and much less
squeamishness about such things. They're not so cocooned there, and
they don't see that what they get up to well away from your prying eyes
has anything to do with you.
We all know how meat gets on the table and it is never by chasing it to
exhaustion and then ripping it to pieces.
But you ignore the reality. It involves death and dismemberment.
Duh! We all know that animals are killed for food and for their skins.
Post by Norman Wells
Bolts
through the head, electrocution in water baths, that sort of thing.
Chickens have their heads pulled off I understand, but probably more
humanely than how my grandfather used to, when we had a chicken Sunday
lunch.
Post by Norman Wells
It's not pretty and you're generally well isolated from it.
If you eat meat, then animals die - it is how it works.
Post by Norman Wells
Those in the countryside are much more down to earth.
There is an abattoir inside the city of Brighton, off the Lewes Road if
it is still there, and I used to work past it every day when I went to
college, as it was the shorted route between two parts of the faculty.

I think it might well still there because that is the area were the guy
used to go to collect the Christmas turkeys (killed to order) that we
all received where I used to work.

Hardly the countryside. And most of us are not a stupid as you seem to
think - which is perhaps why I am mostly vegetarian.
Post by Norman Wells
And to them foxes are
vermin like rats and mice. they just have cuter faces and better PR
with city folk.
Foxes are foxes. Cats are cats. Dogs are dogs. Mice are mice. Rats are
rats.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 15:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Yep, that is the way to make a case for fox hunting - insult the people
who are against the sport.
I'm making the point that those who are not affected in the slightest
should keep their noses out.
It affects us all.
Only because you're a sentimental old softy and think foxes are cute.
It doesn't affect you directly or in any real sense.
Post by Yellow
But that aside - what makes fox hunting so special in your view that if
we do not participate we are not entitled to an opinion?
I believe people should in general only interfere in other people's
business if it is likely to affect them directly. Otherwise, they
should be allowed to do their own thing free from busybodies and
do-gooders poking their noses in. It's a freedom we should all be able
to enjoy.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Most hardly ever see a fox.
That is a stupid statement - of course we all see foxes.
Most hardly ever see a fox. Which is what I said.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Even fewer see a hunt.
I have seen plenty and I assure you, I do not go looking.
And? Do people on horses strike fear in you?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
And hardly any ever see a fox being killed by one.
Thank god, I have not seen the ripping and tearing to know how hunts
end.
There's a lot of nature red in tooth and claw in the countryside.
What's just a little bit more, especially if it deals with vermin?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
If it doesn't affect you directly, I don't see why you should have a say.
But it does affect me. This is my country and what goes on here affects
me just as much as it affects you.
Should I have a say in whether a wind farm or a new estate is erected at
the bottom of your garden? Or if you want to put up a Wendy house?

If not, why not?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
You'll find much less sentimentality in the countryside and much less
squeamishness about such things. They're not so cocooned there, and
they don't see that what they get up to well away from your prying eyes
has anything to do with you.
We all know how meat gets on the table and it is never by chasing it to
exhaustion and then ripping it to pieces.
But you ignore the reality. It involves death and dismemberment.
Duh! We all know that animals are killed for food and for their skins.
So, if it's not death as such that concerns you, what is it?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Bolts
through the head, electrocution in water baths, that sort of thing.
Chickens have their heads pulled off I understand, but probably more
humanely than how my grandfather used to, when we had a chicken Sunday
lunch.
You wouldn't have had the possibility of chicken if he'd had a fox in
the coop.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
It's not pretty and you're generally well isolated from it.
If you eat meat, then animals die - it is how it works.
Post by Norman Wells
Those in the countryside are much more down to earth.
There is an abattoir inside the city of Brighton, off the Lewes Road if
it is still there, and I used to work past it every day when I went to
college, as it was the shorted route between two parts of the faculty.
I think it might well still there because that is the area were the guy
used to go to collect the Christmas turkeys (killed to order) that we
all received where I used to work.
Hardly the countryside. And most of us are not a stupid as you seem to
think - which is perhaps why I am mostly vegetarian.
Post by Norman Wells
And to them foxes are
vermin like rats and mice. they just have cuter faces and better PR
with city folk.
Foxes are foxes. Cats are cats. Dogs are dogs. Mice are mice. Rats are
rats.
How very enigmatic. And incontrovertibly true.
Yellow
2017-05-11 15:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
I'm making the point that those who are not affected in the slightest
should keep their noses out.
It affects us all.
Only because you're a sentimental old softy and think foxes are cute.
It doesn't affect you directly or in any real sense.
I am against abusing animals for sport.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Most hardly ever see a fox.
That is a stupid statement - of course we all see foxes.
Most hardly ever see a fox. Which is what I said.
That is a stupid statement - of course we all see foxes.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Even fewer see a hunt.
I have seen plenty and I assure you, I do not go looking.
And? Do people on horses strike fear in you?
I have already answered that question so why are you asking it again?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
And hardly any ever see a fox being killed by one.
Thank god, I have not seen the ripping and tearing to know how hunts
end.
There's a lot of nature red in tooth and claw in the countryside.
What's just a little bit more, especially if it deals with vermin?
LOL! Is that the only defence you've got?

Pathetic.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
If it doesn't affect you directly, I don't see why you should have a say.
But it does affect me. This is my country and what goes on here affects
me just as much as it affects you.
Should I have a say in whether a wind farm or a new estate is erected at
the bottom of your garden? Or if you want to put up a Wendy house?
If the wendy house is going to kill foxes for sport - then yes.
Post by Norman Wells
If not, why not?
See above.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
But you ignore the reality. It involves death and dismemberment.
Duh! We all know that animals are killed for food and for their skins.
So, if it's not death as such that concerns you, what is it?
Why do you repeatedly keep asking the same questions? Do you have a
problem with reading? Or comprehension? Or are you just trolling?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Bolts
through the head, electrocution in water baths, that sort of thing.
Chickens have their heads pulled off I understand, but probably more
humanely than how my grandfather used to, when we had a chicken Sunday
lunch.
You wouldn't have had the possibility of chicken if he'd had a fox in
the coop.
No answer eh? A "city dweller" keeping live stock and killing them for
food.

Kicks your "if you live in a city you think food comes from the freezer
section" argument in the arse, doesn't it.
Ophelia
2017-05-11 16:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...



We all know how meat gets on the table and it is never by chasing it to
exhaustion and then ripping it to pieces.

==

Yes, I agree. We shoot and it is mainly rabbit which is a huge pest on
farms. We have shooting rights over a lot of land for that purpose.

I could never take part when dogs are pulling the animals apart.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Vidcapper
2017-05-10 13:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
Because they, in turn, can affect matters that involve inner city areas.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
burfordTjustice
2017-05-10 14:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:59:13 +0100
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
Because they, in turn, can affect matters that involve inner city areas.
kooky answer...

Have you taken in any of your beloved Jihadists yet?

No? So you want others to carry the water, eh?
Graham T
2017-05-10 15:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
Post by Judith
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
People who choose to live in the countryside have no monopoly
on humane control of foxes or any other wild animal.
Norman Wells
2017-05-10 16:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graham T
Post by Norman Wells
It's purely a countryside matter. Why should it be decided or even
influenced by inner city flat-dwellers and chattering Islington socialites?
People who choose to live in the countryside have no monopoly
on humane control of foxes or any other wild animal.
Why not? They're the ones who suffer the problems, not the chatterati.

If you had a problem with rats, would you put down a trap?
tim...
2017-05-10 17:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't affect
the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting

tim
Norman Wells
2017-05-10 17:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
Vidcapper
2017-05-11 06:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 07:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
Ever tried shooting a rat with a rifle?
tim...
2017-05-11 09:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
Ever tried shooting a rat with a rifle?
you keep a cat for that

AFAIA running around in a field watching the cat chase a mouse, and cheering
when it catches it, is not leisure pursuit

tim
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 10:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
Ever tried shooting a rat with a rifle?
you keep a cat for that
AFAIA running around in a field watching the cat chase a mouse, and
cheering when it catches it, is not leisure pursuit
I see. It's OK for cats to chase and kill innocent wildlife, and it
would be OK for dogs to do likewise, just as long as everyone is
terribly civilised about either and don't applaud?

Really, I don't see any basis for distinguishing in law between similar
activities based just on the amount of cheering that goes on. Why do you?
Yellow
2017-05-11 12:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild
animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public
were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
Ever tried shooting a rat with a rifle?
you keep a cat for that
AFAIA running around in a field watching the cat chase a mouse, and
cheering when it catches it, is not leisure pursuit
I see. It's OK for cats to chase and kill innocent wildlife,
Actually - it is not OK, but it is at least something that comes about
simply due to cats existing.

When I had mice I simply filled up the holes where they were getting in
but I do appreciate that for some infestations it is more of a battle,
so traps and poisons have to be used.

Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
Post by Norman Wells
and it
would be OK for dogs to do likewise, just as long as everyone is
terribly civilised about either and don't applaud?
Domestic dogs do not generally have a reputation for killing other
animals - they normally have to be breed and trained for the job.
Post by Norman Wells
Really, I don't see any basis for distinguishing in law between similar
activities based just on the amount of cheering that goes on. Why do you?
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 14:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild
animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public
were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
Ever tried shooting a rat with a rifle?
you keep a cat for that
AFAIA running around in a field watching the cat chase a mouse, and
cheering when it catches it, is not leisure pursuit
I see. It's OK for cats to chase and kill innocent wildlife,
Actually - it is not OK, but it is at least something that comes about
simply due to cats existing.
Do you complain about it? Have you signed a petition?

Should I have a say in whether your or anyone else's keeping a cat
should be a criminal offence?
Post by Yellow
When I had mice I simply filled up the holes where they were getting in
but I do appreciate that for some infestations it is more of a battle,
so traps and poisons have to be used.
You don't really mind mice dying in agony then? Or presumably rats.

Why do you draw the line between them and foxes which are a big problem
in the countryside?
Post by Yellow
Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
You could say that your 'battle' against mice using traps and poisons is
also a form of sport.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
and it
would be OK for dogs to do likewise, just as long as everyone is
terribly civilised about either and don't applaud?
Domestic dogs do not generally have a reputation for killing other
animals - they normally have to be breed and trained for the job.
They chase livestock, they kill sheep, they sometimes kill babies even.
They haven't been trained to do that, it's instinctive.

Especially if they haven't been fed a bowl of Pedigree Chum in the last
hour.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Really, I don't see any basis for distinguishing in law between similar
activities based just on the amount of cheering that goes on. Why do you?
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
Yellow
2017-05-11 15:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
I see. It's OK for cats to chase and kill innocent wildlife,
Actually - it is not OK, but it is at least something that comes about
simply due to cats existing.
Do you complain about it?
Yes!
Post by Norman Wells
Have you signed a petition?
And that would help - how?
Post by Norman Wells
Should I have a say in whether your or anyone else's keeping a cat
should be a criminal offence?
I would like to see cats kept inside and their owners responsible for
their behaviour - as per dogs.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
When I had mice I simply filled up the holes where they were getting in
but I do appreciate that for some infestations it is more of a battle,
so traps and poisons have to be used.
You don't really mind mice dying in agony then? Or presumably rats.
Yes, I mind, which is why I did not use poison when when I had mice.
Post by Norman Wells
Why do you draw the line between them and foxes which are a big problem
in the countryside?
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
You could say that your 'battle' against mice using traps and poisons is
also a form of sport.
You could say that - if you are an idiot.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
and it
would be OK for dogs to do likewise, just as long as everyone is
terribly civilised about either and don't applaud?
Domestic dogs do not generally have a reputation for killing other
animals - they normally have to be breed and trained for the job.
They chase livestock, they kill sheep, they sometimes kill babies even.
They haven't been trained to do that, it's instinctive.
It happens, but it is so rare that it is front page news when it does
occur.
Post by Norman Wells
Especially if they haven't been fed a bowl of Pedigree Chum in the last
hour.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Really, I don't see any basis for distinguishing in law between similar
activities based just on the amount of cheering that goes on. Why do you?
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 16:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
I see. It's OK for cats to chase and kill innocent wildlife,
Actually - it is not OK, but it is at least something that comes about
simply due to cats existing.
Do you complain about it?
Yes!
Post by Norman Wells
Have you signed a petition?
And that would help - how?
Post by Norman Wells
Should I have a say in whether your or anyone else's keeping a cat
should be a criminal offence?
I would like to see cats kept inside and their owners responsible for
their behaviour - as per dogs.
Since they can't be trained like a dog, the only solution is elimination.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
When I had mice I simply filled up the holes where they were getting in
but I do appreciate that for some infestations it is more of a battle,
so traps and poisons have to be used.
You don't really mind mice dying in agony then? Or presumably rats.
Yes, I mind, which is why I did not use poison when when I had mice.
So, you broke their backs instead? It's what most traps do.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Why do you draw the line between them and foxes which are a big problem
in the countryside?
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
I'm surprised you have to ask. I'd have thought you might have known or
learnt before coming to your view on hunting them.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
You could say that your 'battle' against mice using traps and poisons is
also a form of sport.
You could say that - if you are an idiot.
What distinguishes it from being a sport then?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
and it
would be OK for dogs to do likewise, just as long as everyone is
terribly civilised about either and don't applaud?
Domestic dogs do not generally have a reputation for killing other
animals - they normally have to be breed and trained for the job.
They chase livestock, they kill sheep, they sometimes kill babies even.
They haven't been trained to do that, it's instinctive.
It happens, but it is so rare that it is front page news when it does
occur.
It must actually be pretty common. There are signs everywhere in the
countryside saying dogs must be kept on leads. Why's that do you think?
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Especially if they haven't been fed a bowl of Pedigree Chum in the last
hour.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Really, I don't see any basis for distinguishing in law between similar
activities based just on the amount of cheering that goes on. Why do you?
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. So too is the definition of
sport. Both might be necessary. Both might be sport.
Yellow
2017-05-11 17:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
When I had mice I simply filled up the holes where they were getting in
but I do appreciate that for some infestations it is more of a battle,
so traps and poisons have to be used.
You don't really mind mice dying in agony then? Or presumably rats.
Yes, I mind, which is why I did not use poison when when I had mice.
So, you broke their backs instead? It's what most traps do.
I did not use traps - I filled up the holes - but had I needed to go
down that path I would have gone the humane trap route.

A friend of mine who had a real infestation filled a fishtank and when
it was full he would take them for a drive and release them on The
Downs.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Why do you draw the line between them and foxes which are a big problem
in the countryside?
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
I'm surprised you have to ask. I'd have thought you might have known or
learnt before coming to your view on hunting them.
You cannot answer the question? No surprise there the.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
You could say that your 'battle' against mice using traps and poisons is
also a form of sport.
You could say that - if you are an idiot.
What distinguishes it from being a sport then?
So you are an idiot.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Domestic dogs do not generally have a reputation for killing other
animals - they normally have to be breed and trained for the job.
They chase livestock, they kill sheep, they sometimes kill babies even.
They haven't been trained to do that, it's instinctive.
It happens, but it is so rare that it is front page news when it does
occur.
It must actually be pretty common. There are signs everywhere in the
countryside saying dogs must be kept on leads. Why's that do you think?
Good advice. Why are you against it?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. So too is the definition of
sport. Both might be necessary. Both might be sport.
Yep - you are still an idiot.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 17:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Why do you draw the line between them and foxes which are a big problem
in the countryside?
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
I'm surprised you have to ask. I'd have thought you might have known or
learnt before coming to your view on hunting them.
You cannot answer the question? No surprise there the.
You were given the answer by Jack in another post.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
You could say that your 'battle' against mice using traps and poisons is
also a form of sport.
You could say that - if you are an idiot.
What distinguishes it from being a sport then?
So you are an idiot.
I think all we can logically conclude is that you have no answer.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Domestic dogs do not generally have a reputation for killing other
animals - they normally have to be breed and trained for the job.
They chase livestock, they kill sheep, they sometimes kill babies even.
They haven't been trained to do that, it's instinctive.
It happens, but it is so rare that it is front page news when it does
occur.
It must actually be pretty common. There are signs everywhere in the
countryside saying dogs must be kept on leads. Why's that do you think?
Good advice. Why are you against it?
I'm not against it. Livestock is valuable and belongs to someone. It
needs to be protected. Foxes aren't, don't and don't.
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. So too is the definition of
sport. Both might be necessary. Both might be sport.
Yep - you are still an idiot.
Again, the only logical conclusion is that you have no answer to the
question.
Yellow
2017-05-11 22:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Hunts on the other hand are organised, for sport.
You could say that your 'battle' against mice using traps and poisons is
also a form of sport.
You could say that - if you are an idiot.
What distinguishes it from being a sport then?
So you are an idiot.
I think all we can logically conclude is that you have no answer.
Be clear - that is my answer. You are an idiot.
Yellow
2017-05-11 22:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. So too is the definition of
sport. Both might be necessary. Both might be sport.
Yep - you are still an idiot.
Again, the only logical conclusion is that you have no answer to the
question.
And again, just so you are clear, that was my answer -> you are an
idiot.
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 08:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. So too is the definition of
sport. Both might be necessary. Both might be sport.
Yep - you are still an idiot.
Again, the only logical conclusion is that you have no answer to the
question.
And again, just so you are clear, that was my answer -> you are an
idiot.
Yes, I know. It's just that conclusions carry more weight if they are
actually supported.
Yellow
2017-05-12 09:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Do you really not see a difference between riding a household from mice
and rats and the sport of fox hunting?
No. What is it?
One is necessary and one is a sport.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. So too is the definition of
sport. Both might be necessary. Both might be sport.
Yep - you are still an idiot.
Again, the only logical conclusion is that you have no answer to the
question.
And again, just so you are clear, that was my answer -> you are an
idiot.
Yes, I know. It's just that conclusions carry more weight if they are
actually supported.
It is hard to ignore such a plethora of evidence.
AndyW
2017-05-12 07:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It happens, but it is so rare that it is front page news when it does
occur.
It must actually be pretty common. There are signs everywhere in the
countryside saying dogs must be kept on leads. Why's that do you think?
I have witnessed the aftermath about once every 7 or 8 years when a pet
goes wild in lambing season and 'worries' lambs (rips apart like they
were shaking a chew toy). I have actually witnessed it once and had to
kick drag the dog off then shoot the lamb. On a neighbouring farm the
farmhand shot a worrying dog, the police were involved and the dog owner
got the bill for the lost animals.
It is only really an issue when the farm has a large public 'footfall'
and since the farm where I shoot/work has 2 public footpaths running
through it then it has a high footfall.

Andy
Handsome Jack
2017-05-11 16:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
They kill domesticated fowl like chickens, ducks and geese, sometimes in
large quantities. And many people in the country raise fowl, not just
commercial farmers.

However, that's not really the point at issue, since you are not so much
against killing foxes as against killing them by hunting with dogs, on
cruelty grounds.

I used to feel very much as you did. Later I came to recognise that my
views were just inverted snobbery. I didn't really care about foxes, I
just didn't like the kind of people who hunted them and so I wanted them
to be inconvenienced. And that, I decided, was not a reasonable or fair
way to make law.

I understand the cruelty argument, and it certainly has some force
against bear-baiting and the like. But fox hunting isn't particularly
cruel. It's probably an easier way to die than having your brain
gradually devoured by parasitic worms, which is what good old Mother
Nature has in store for many of them.
--
Jack
Yellow
2017-05-11 16:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Yellow
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
They kill domesticated fowl like chickens, ducks and geese, sometimes in
large quantities. And many people in the country raise fowl, not just
commercial farmers.
All that means is that you have to keep the foxes out of the areas where
domestic or commercial animals are kept. It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.

We have foxes, mice, squirrels, rats and seagulls around here, and
probably plenty more besides, but we do not kill them unless they invade
our homes - and generally not even then if an alternative can be found.
Post by Handsome Jack
However, that's not really the point at issue, since you are not so much
against killing foxes as against killing them by hunting with dogs, on
cruelty grounds.
Agreed.
Post by Handsome Jack
I used to feel very much as you did. Later I came to recognise that my
views were just inverted snobbery. I didn't really care about foxes, I
just didn't like the kind of people who hunted them and so I wanted them
to be inconvenienced. And that, I decided, was not a reasonable or fair
way to make law.
Well done for admitting your prejudice but I am not you - clearly.
Post by Handsome Jack
I understand the cruelty argument, and it certainly has some force
against bear-baiting and the like. But fox hunting isn't particularly
cruel. It's probably an easier way to die than having your brain
gradually devoured by parasitic worms, which is what good old Mother
Nature has in store for many of them.
Again with the stupid argument - worms eat brains so ripping foxes apart
is acceptable.

No it is not.
Norman Wells
2017-05-11 17:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Yellow
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
They kill domesticated fowl like chickens, ducks and geese, sometimes in
large quantities. And many people in the country raise fowl, not just
commercial farmers.
All that means is that you have to keep the foxes out of the areas where
domestic or commercial animals are kept.
What do you suggest? Putting up signs saying 'No Foxes'?
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Which they are of course. If you live where they are and they take your
livestock, they take your livelihood.
Yellow
2017-05-11 22:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Yellow
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
They kill domesticated fowl like chickens, ducks and geese, sometimes in
large quantities. And many people in the country raise fowl, not just
commercial farmers.
All that means is that you have to keep the foxes out of the areas where
domestic or commercial animals are kept.
What do you suggest? Putting up signs saying 'No Foxes'?
It works for dogs.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Which they are of course. If you live where they are and they take your
livestock, they take your livelihood.
So do you advocate chasing lions and tigers on horseback, along side a
pack of dogs, to cull them?
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 07:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Which they are of course. If you live where they are and they take your
livestock, they take your livelihood.
So do you advocate chasing lions and tigers on horseback, along side a
pack of dogs, to cull them?
No, it's horses for courses.
The Todal
2017-05-12 09:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Which they are of course. If you live where they are and they take your
livestock, they take your livelihood.
So do you advocate chasing lions and tigers on horseback, along side a
pack of dogs, to cull them?
No, it's horses for courses.
I've never understood why badger-baiting went out of fashion. It's fun,
it's cheap and we'll never have a shortage of badgers. And the badgers
will die anyway, sooner or later.

In a Tory Britain with declining living standards, blood sports
shouldn't just be for the wealthy. Let the poor have their fun too.
Yellow
2017-05-12 09:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Which they are of course. If you live where they are and they take your
livestock, they take your livelihood.
So do you advocate chasing lions and tigers on horseback, along side a
pack of dogs, to cull them?
No, it's horses for courses.
I've never understood why badger-baiting went out of fashion. It's fun,
it's cheap and we'll never have a shortage of badgers. And the badgers
will die anyway, sooner or later.
In a Tory Britain with declining living standards, blood sports
shouldn't just be for the wealthy. Let the poor have their fun too.
Putting my general disgust for fox hunting aside and just looking at
this politically, I think Mrs May is making a really big mistake on this
one.

At the movement, I think we can all see that she has the public behind
her and is going to pick votes up from non-natural Tory voters, but fox
hunting reminds people what the Tories stand for on their worst day.

Maybe she thinks that the amount of strength she has will carry it, with
the public, but I think it will damage her more than she is giving it
credit for.

We will see.
The Todal
2017-05-12 09:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Which they are of course. If you live where they are and they take your
livestock, they take your livelihood.
So do you advocate chasing lions and tigers on horseback, along side a
pack of dogs, to cull them?
No, it's horses for courses.
I've never understood why badger-baiting went out of fashion. It's fun,
it's cheap and we'll never have a shortage of badgers. And the badgers
will die anyway, sooner or later.
In a Tory Britain with declining living standards, blood sports
shouldn't just be for the wealthy. Let the poor have their fun too.
Putting my general disgust for fox hunting aside and just looking at
this politically, I think Mrs May is making a really big mistake on this
one.
At the movement, I think we can all see that she has the public behind
her and is going to pick votes up from non-natural Tory voters, but fox
hunting reminds people what the Tories stand for on their worst day.
Maybe she thinks that the amount of strength she has will carry it, with
the public, but I think it will damage her more than she is giving it
credit for.
We will see.
I don't suppose fox hunting could ever be an election-loser for the
Tories, but it might appeal to a sector of country folk, of all classes,
who value British traditions of which fox-hunting is an important one
and a symbol of other traditions.

If the positions were reversed and Labour was intending to have a
manifesto commitment to abolishing fox hunting, I'd regard that as very
unwise and likely to appeal only to a small number of vegetarian
sandal-wearing do-gooders. I don't like the idea of fox hunting and I
would never participate in it, but I don't think it's important enough
as an issue. People-hunting is more important, in all its many different
forms. The weakest and poorest people are treated with callous contempt
and forced to present themselves for work even when they have serious
medical conditions, or are left in refugee centres, their applications
for asylum or residency prolonged for many years in order to massage the
government statistics.
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 09:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
If the positions were reversed and Labour was intending to have a
manifesto commitment to abolishing fox hunting, I'd regard that as very
unwise and likely to appeal only to a small number of vegetarian
sandal-wearing do-gooders.
It would be dressed up as humanity, but would actually be nothing but
class warfare.
Handsome Jack
2017-05-12 06:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Yellow
How are "foxes a big problem in the countryside"?
They kill domesticated fowl like chickens, ducks and geese, sometimes in
large quantities. And many people in the country raise fowl, not just
commercial farmers.
All that means is that you have to keep the foxes out of the areas where
domestic or commercial animals are kept.
That is much easier said than done. Foxes are very good at getting into
chicken coops. You need a lot of expensive fencing, and it only takes
one lapse and the fox gets in and kills them all. It happens regularly,
especially to smallholders.
Post by Yellow
It does not mean that "foxes
are a problem" any more than lions and tigers killing animals to eat
makes them a problem.
Yes it does, because there are a lot of foxes in Britain and a lot of
people who keep chickens, or would like to if it weren't for foxes.
Post by Yellow
We have foxes, mice, squirrels, rats and seagulls around here, and
probably plenty more besides, but we do not kill them unless they invade
our homes - and generally not even then if an alternative can be found.
Post by Handsome Jack
However, that's not really the point at issue, since you are not so much
against killing foxes as against killing them by hunting with dogs, on
cruelty grounds.
Agreed.
Post by Handsome Jack
I used to feel very much as you did. Later I came to recognise that my
views were just inverted snobbery. I didn't really care about foxes, I
just didn't like the kind of people who hunted them and so I wanted them
to be inconvenienced. And that, I decided, was not a reasonable or fair
way to make law.
Well done for admitting your prejudice but I am not you - clearly.
Post by Handsome Jack
I understand the cruelty argument, and it certainly has some force
against bear-baiting and the like. But fox hunting isn't particularly
cruel. It's probably an easier way to die than having your brain
gradually devoured by parasitic worms, which is what good old Mother
Nature has in store for many of them.
Again with the stupid argument - worms eat brains so ripping foxes apart
is acceptable.
I don't think it is a stupid argument. I have shown that fox-hunting
isn't particularly harmful, considering the other ways that foxes die in
the wild. Therefore, I argue, to legislate a ban on fox-hunting is
disproportionate to the harm it actually prevents.
--
Jack
pensive hamster
2017-05-11 11:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 11 May 2017 10:24:10 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
[...]
Post by tim...
AFAIA running around in a field watching the cat chase a mouse, and cheering
when it catches it, is not leisure pursuit
Which no doubt explains the complete lack of commercial
success for the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon series ...
kat
2017-05-11 12:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by tim...
AFAIA running around in a field watching the cat chase a mouse, and cheering
when it catches it, is not leisure pursuit
Which no doubt explains the complete lack of commercial
success for the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon series ...
I think that was because the under-mouse always won. :-)
--
kat
Post by pensive hamster
^..^<
AndyW
2017-05-12 06:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
I don't think it's a matter for general public opinion. It doesn't
affect the vast majority of the population.
on that basis neither does bear bating and cock fighting
From the dawn of time man has hunted creatures of the animal kingdom.
For food, to hone hunting skills, and to eliminate vermin or animal
threats. Fox hunting is one such traditional activity. Bear-baiting
and cock-fighting are entirely gratuitous activities that serve no
useful purpose at all. That's the difference.
People don't eat foxes.
People don't need to hunt for food.
A rifle or shotgun is a far cheaper & efficient way of dealing with vermin.
Ever tried shooting a rat with a rifle?
Yup. With a small amount of practice it is an easy job especially with
some forward planning and a silencer.
I have an air rifle just for this job, fairly easy job and on a new
ground I can usually get over a hundred on day 1. My best day was almost
300 while shooting on Rhum (the Nature reserve) whern I worked there in
in the late 80s. It had an old quarry as a dump and it was infested,
being a nature reserve then they could not poison or trap so I got the
job of ratter-in-chief.

For foxes I have a .22 rifle but foxes are not a real problem in my area
just now, they are at their most dangerous during lambing, but when we
need to cull them then we just set up bait zones and bait them for a
week or so until the foxes get complacent and then spend the night
waiting. The real problem is Roe deer as the farm is mostly arable, I
have access to (but don't own) a .223 (same size but not interchangeable
with the NATO 5.56mm). Deer are a lot harder to cull as you cannot bait
for them effectively.

Just to nail my colours to the mast from a 'countryman' perspective; IMO
if you need to kill an animal for any reason then it should be done
quickly and with the minimum pain or stress to the animal involved.
Riding on horseback and hunting with hounds is a grossly inefficient way
to cull an animal and it causes a great deal of stress to the animal. I
prefer a neck break trap for the smaller animals or a bullet for the
larger animals. I do not snare, poison or hunt with dogs (retrieving and
flushing aside).

Andy
Omega
2017-05-10 11:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
May has said she will allow a vote on the issue.

omega
burfordTjustice
2017-05-10 11:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:07:35 +0100
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild
animals in the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb
by limb until they die: despite that at the last count a clear
majority of he public were against the repeal of the Fox Hunting
legislation.
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable
British People.
Awwww you poor fucking snowflake...Get fucking over it.

Here watch some Triggers:

JNugent
2017-05-10 14:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
Diane Abbott supports fox-hunting?

Who knew?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Incubus
2017-05-10 14:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Judith
I see that the bitch has said that she is in favour of killing wild animals in
the most horrific way: they being attacked and torn limb by limb until they
die: despite that at the last count a clear majority of he public were against
the repeal of the Fox Hunting legislation.
Just shows how in touch she is with hardworking© strong and stable British
People.
Diane Abbott supports fox-hunting?
Who knew?
She's prejudiced against gingers.
Loading...