UKIP on Fox Hunting.

barrymx5 · 06-12-2004, 04:27 PM

I did not expect Cynic to agree with my comments about the MoD but the majority of taxpayers oppose hunting so my point is valid. I have more sympathy with your comments about the National Trust after the person who came last in the 2003 election for the National Executive was appointed after use of the Chairman's proxy. Nevertheless if NT membership is representative of the UK population, my arguement on the MoD stands.
Yes my kids went to public school and only my bank balance regrets it. And as one of the pipers paying the tune I played my part in stopping the local hunt using the school grounds after insisting on a democratic debate and vote by the students. I am a strong believer that you should not have to pay for a service twice and therefore favour education Vouchers - but that is for another Topic. I have in an earlier posting made it clear I have no time for class warriors on hunting or other issues.
Finally my child and kitten examples were responses to an outburst claiming one can do whatever one likes on ones own land. Another example is the Badger Protection legislation, which was not enacted by those red in tooth and flag.
Argue it as you may, the majority favour the ban on hunting with hounds. And UKIP needs those votes.

C_steam · 06-12-2004, 07:37 PM

Probably the correction to the above should be 'The majority WHO COULD BE BOTHERED TO HAVE AN OPINION are against fox hunting'.

A huge number couldn't really give a stuff and were happy to let things be.

As to where the minority who actually have a view live, the 'no' camp are urban, the 'yes' camp rural. But lets take an aside or two here:-

1. Probably (now) the split would be different and the outcome of any poll of the people would depend on the question asked. i.e the reaction to 'do you agree that it is civilised to allow hunting dogs viciously rip foxes apart' would probably be NO. If the question were 'Do you think it is wrong for the government should use extraordinary powers to push a bill through parliament which is particulalry designed to affect, in the main, one class of people' the answer would be YES.

This is why the fox-hunting question is so emotive. Its not about the foxes you see.

2. How do we ensure MP's vote with the feelings of the majority of their constituents, rather than in line with their parties direction? Is democracy in the UK based on voting for an individual to represent you, or voting for a party to run the country?

cynic · 06-12-2004, 11:59 PM

barrymx5
You are not only wrong but intolerant as well. Fox hunters as you know will go out of their way not to trespass where there is no permission. Occasionally they get it wrong - big deal. I sincerely hope that you will abide by the Rule of Law when the Right to Roamers enforce their 'right' to trample over your land, drop litter, leave gates open, let dogs run free and attack livestock or wild animals* then injure themselves on your property and sue you for compensation. The Majority are in favour of this after all? (*Oh but of course they can't do that - your notice says no Hunting but lets not get all worked up, these are not Toffs). Most of UKIP supporters are for Freedom and Tolerance which is the principle at stake, and you are in the minority. Hug your Kittens in the Privacy of your own Property, but leave other people to get on with their lives without interference. I will leave you to have the last word on this as I am just too busy drowning Puppies to devote any more time to this!
8)

barrymx5 · 07-12-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

A huge number couldn't really give a stuff and were happy to let things be.

So the argument stands that UKIP should avoid getting INTO phpbb_the debate now that hunting is banned!
The way you pose the poll question is critical I agree - and it was fairly unemotive if I recall (but cannot find the exact wording). This point is much more important in relation to the Euro and EU Constitution referenda - if the Government ever gets round to holding them.
As for the role of the MPs and their representation of their constituents, I suspect our views are not dissimilar since I assume we agree on much of the political agenda (apart from hunting). On hunting, the point is that both a majority of MPs and constituents were on the same side.
I am sorry that Cynic is bowing out and trust he will be able to find time to help UKIP between his bouts of animal torture in the privacy of his own home.

kernow · 07-12-2004, 01:14 PM

If anti-hunt people had ever followed hounds on horseback whilst hunting foxes, I would guarentee they would not be anti-hunt. All the rabid anti-hunting people I've ever met, have gained their knowledge of fox hunting from the tabloid press. It is a pity those same anti-hunting people don't complain about real cruelty e.g. the barbaric practice of religious slaughter, both Halal and Kosher of over 200,000 animals in the UK every week! Who are first restrained and then have their throats without being stunned first.

barrymx5 · 08-12-2004, 12:17 AM

Kernow, with you 100% on kosher and halal barbarism. Anyone have any poll stats on those who would support or oppose UKIP if we pledged to ban them?

Anthony Butcher · 08-12-2004, 12:35 AM

Does anyone have any real experience of halal and kosher meat preparation? I can understand that it is easily assumed to be "barbaric", but is it really any worse than any other manner of killings animals that we use?

kernow · 08-12-2004, 01:13 AM

I have witnessed several bullocks being slaughtered by normal methods. The animal is shot in the head first with a humane killer retained bolt gun. An explosive cartridge in the gun fires a retained bolt deep INTO phpbb_the animals brain, which renders it immediately deeply unconcious. Whilst unconcious it's throat is cut and it bleeds to death.
In relgious slaughter the throat is cut with no pre stunning from a humane killer. So put yourself in the animals position, if you had to have your throat cut wouldn't you sooner be unconcious when it happened?

Carl Faulkner · 08-12-2004, 07:48 AM

Did you know that many schools in areas with a sizable Muslim population only buy halal meat for school dinners?

Julian Morrison · 08-12-2004, 08:47 AM

Both methods were developed for two purposes IIRC: to bleed out the animal thoroughly since its heart is still pumping (both Jewish and Islamic religious law have blood as a taboo food), and to be more humane. Given that, in the time they were thought up, a sharp knife and a single cut were about as humane as technology allowed.

06-12-2004, 11:59 PM	#43 (permalink)
cynic Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 127	End barrymx5 You are not only wrong but intolerant as well. Fox hunters as you know will go out of their way not to trespass where there is no permission. Occasionally they get it wrong - big deal. I sincerely hope that you will abide by the Rule of Law when the Right to Roamers enforce their 'right' to trample over your land, drop litter, leave gates open, let dogs run free and attack livestock or wild animals* then injure themselves on your property and sue you for compensation. The Majority are in favour of this after all? (*Oh but of course they can't do that - your notice says no Hunting but lets not get all worked up, these are not Toffs). Most of UKIP supporters are for Freedom and Tolerance which is the principle at stake, and you are in the minority. Hug your Kittens in the Privacy of your own Property, but leave other people to get on with their lives without interference. I will leave you to have the last word on this as I am just too busy drowning Puppies to devote any more time to this! 8)

07-12-2004, 01:14 PM	#45 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,184	Hunting with hounds If anti-hunt people had ever followed hounds on horseback whilst hunting foxes, I would guarentee they would not be anti-hunt. All the rabid anti-hunting people I've ever met, have gained their knowledge of fox hunting from the tabloid press. It is a pity those same anti-hunting people don't complain about real cruelty e.g. the barbaric practice of religious slaughter, both Halal and Kosher of over 200,000 animals in the UK every week! Who are first restrained and then have their throats without being stunned first.

08-12-2004, 01:13 AM	#48 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,184	Difference between religious slaughter and none religious I have witnessed several bullocks being slaughtered by normal methods. The animal is shot in the head first with a humane killer retained bolt gun. An explosive cartridge in the gun fires a retained bolt deep INTO phpbb_the animals brain, which renders it immediately deeply unconcious. Whilst unconcious it's throat is cut and it bleeds to death. In relgious slaughter the throat is cut with no pre stunning from a humane killer. So put yourself in the animals position, if you had to have your throat cut wouldn't you sooner be unconcious when it happened?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-12-2004, 04:27 PM	#41 (permalink)
barrymx5 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Somerset Posts: 20	I did not expect Cynic to agree with my comments about the MoD but the majority of taxpayers oppose hunting so my point is valid. I have more sympathy with your comments about the National Trust after the person who came last in the 2003 election for the National Executive was appointed after use of the Chairman's proxy. Nevertheless if NT membership is representative of the UK population, my arguement on the MoD stands. Yes my kids went to public school and only my bank balance regrets it. And as one of the pipers paying the tune I played my part in stopping the local hunt using the school grounds after insisting on a democratic debate and vote by the students. I am a strong believer that you should not have to pay for a service twice and therefore favour education Vouchers - but that is for another Topic. I have in an earlier posting made it clear I have no time for class warriors on hunting or other issues. Finally my child and kitten examples were responses to an outburst claiming one can do whatever one likes on ones own land. Another example is the Badger Protection legislation, which was not enacted by those red in tooth and flag. Argue it as you may, the majority favour the ban on hunting with hounds. And UKIP needs those votes.

06-12-2004, 07:37 PM	#42 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,805	Probably the correction to the above should be 'The majority WHO COULD BE BOTHERED TO HAVE AN OPINION are against fox hunting'. A huge number couldn't really give a stuff and were happy to let things be. As to where the minority who actually have a view live, the 'no' camp are urban, the 'yes' camp rural. But lets take an aside or two here:- 1. Probably (now) the split would be different and the outcome of any poll of the people would depend on the question asked. i.e the reaction to 'do you agree that it is civilised to allow hunting dogs viciously rip foxes apart' would probably be NO. If the question were 'Do you think it is wrong for the government should use extraordinary powers to push a bill through parliament which is particulalry designed to affect, in the main, one class of people' the answer would be YES. This is why the fox-hunting question is so emotive. Its not about the foxes you see. 2. How do we ensure MP's vote with the feelings of the majority of their constituents, rather than in line with their parties direction? Is democracy in the UK based on voting for an individual to represent you, or voting for a party to run the country?

08-12-2004, 12:17 AM	#46 (permalink)
barrymx5 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Somerset Posts: 20	Kernow, with you 100% on kosher and halal barbarism. Anyone have any poll stats on those who would support or oppose UKIP if we pledged to ban them?

08-12-2004, 12:35 AM	#47 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,209 Party: None	Does anyone have any real experience of halal and kosher meat preparation? I can understand that it is easily assumed to be "barbaric", but is it really any worse than any other manner of killings animals that we use?

08-12-2004, 07:48 AM	#49 (permalink)
Carl Faulkner Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 352	Did you know that many schools in areas with a sizable Muslim population only buy halal meat for school dinners?

08-12-2004, 08:47 AM	#50 (permalink)
Julian Morrison Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Banbury, England Posts: 198	Both methods were developed for two purposes IIRC: to bleed out the animal thoroughly since its heart is still pumping (both Jewish and Islamic religious law have blood as a taboo food), and to be more humane. Given that, in the time they were thought up, a sharp knife and a single cut were about as humane as technology allowed.