UKIP on Fox Hunting.

barrymx5 · 03-01-2005, 01:31 AM

I have been too busy celebrating to follow this thread for the last week or so but can understand BB feeling isolated. He is spot on in my book - and, for what it is worth, I live in the country and have never voted Labour in my life. My point has always been that the hunting issue is now settled and UKIP (Man included) should accept that and concentrate on the important issue of securing enough votes to get us out of the wretched EU. We will not do that by squabbling amongst ourselves about past (emotive) issues. UKIP argues, rightly, that the majority oppose the EU and their view should be reflected by action; the majority of voters and MPs are against hunting with hounds and have accordingly banned it. End of story. Now if we want to start including real animal welfare issues which are still outstanding, such as intensive (factory) farming, transport of farm animals, vivisection, ritual Jewish and Islamic slaughter, fur farming etc etc in the UKIP manifesto then those could win us votes.

Sarumano · 03-01-2005, 03:10 AM

a) Hunting should be -as someone else suggested way back- the subject of a local referendum, which UKIP supports.

b) My own view, for what it's worth, is that you may hunt what you like. As long as you eat it afterwards.

Enforcer · 03-01-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

There doesn't appear to be a great deal out there regarding the position of UKIP on the issue of fox hunting. There is a brief mention on this page, which suggests that the party would not support a ban.

"A UKIP administration would restructure the law to ensure that free speech once again came to mean just that. There is no one 'correct' view on immigration, the European Union, devolution, multiculturalism, education, women's rights, fox hunting, or anything else. UKIP believes that the British people are perfectly capable of using their traditional Freedom of Speech responsibly - just as they always have done. "

It suggests nothing of the sort only that free speech should prevail and that a democratic vote should be made.

Dave · 04-01-2005, 09:18 AM

Sarumano said
"Hunting should be -as someone else suggested way back- the subject of a local referendum, which UKIP supports".

Below is my answer that I think Sarumano is referring to:

"UKIP believe in giving power back to the people in local referendums, for instance where hunting takes place a referendum should be held, where no hunting takes place no referendum, I havent noticed the Brixton stag hounds out of late or the Birmingham City hunt riding out lately either, inner city and urban MPs should concentrate more on HUNTING drug dealers and BANNING drive by SHOOTINGS, and leave rural affairs to rural peoples"

My personal view is that this had not alot to do with cruelty but more to do with an imagined class war (lets give the toffs a bloody nose) and funding for the labour party.

What has been achieved by the ban is lots of working class people, stable lads/girls, farriers, vets etc, to poorer lives (lower wages, loss of jobs), the fox has been condemmed to exstinction (hunts tend to take out old and infirm, and a few cubs during cubbing season), shooting and gassing will be less discriminate and therefore many more will be killed.

Those who think the issue is settled are very wrong, The Parliament Act should never be used for such a minor issue, MPs do not have the intelligence nor the knowledge to deal with such emotive issues especially inner city and urban MPs, and donations from interested third parties should never make policy.

And I will get one of my answers in now, yes a minor issue, compared to Health, Taxation, Economy, Needless Wars, the eu etc,etc, Hunting with hounds is indeed a very very minor issue, and the Government should be attacked on it at every available oppotunity.

Dave

Bobby-Veritas's Boy · 04-01-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Sarumano said
"Hunting should be -as someone else suggested way back- the subject of a local referendum, which UKIP supports".

Below is my answer that I think Sarumano is referring to:

"UKIP believe in giving power back to the people in local referendums, for instance where hunting takes place a referendum should be held, where no hunting takes place no referendum, I havent noticed the Brixton stag hounds out of late or the Birmingham City hunt riding out lately either, inner city and urban MPs should concentrate more on HUNTING drug dealers and BANNING drive by SHOOTINGS, and leave rural affairs to rural peoples"
so what's next, MP's not being able to vote on disabled issues unless they are themselves disabled, or will it be a case of only MP's who smoke deciding how much tax goes on a packet of cigarettes? Lets forget sitting on the fence with this cop-out called referendum, what I want to know is A. Does UKIK officially support the retention of hunting with hounds. B. What happens to those of us who will not support this party line should this be the case. C. As I said can we get off the fence on these issues.

My personal view is that this had not alot to do with cruelty but more to do with an imagined class war (lets give the toffs a bloody nose) and funding for the labour party.

What has been achieved by the ban is lots of working class people, stable lads/girls, farriers, vets etc, to poorer lives (lower wages, loss of jobs), the fox has been condemmed to exstinction (hunts tend to take out old and infirm, and a few cubs during cubbing season), shooting and gassing will be less discriminate and therefore many more will be killed.

Those who think the issue is settled are very wrong, The Parliament Act should never be used for such a minor issue, MPs do not have the intelligence nor the knowledge to deal with such emotive issues especially inner city and urban MPs, and donations from interested third parties should never make policy.

And I will get one of my answers in now, yes a minor issue, compared to Health, Taxation, Economy, Needless Wars, the eu etc,etc, Hunting with hounds is indeed a very very minor issue, and the Government should be attacked on it at every available oppotunity.

Dave

Dave · 04-01-2005, 11:36 AM

BB a bit of a daft reply, and most definetly not thought out.

By giving locol referendums it allows sitting UKIP MPs the choice of which side to campaign for in that respect UKIP allows for different opinions to thrive within one party.

Fox Hunting can be clearly defined as a rural activity and can therefore be sorted out at a local level, people in large towns and cities have no reason to get involved, whereas smoking, disablment issues affect nationally, so the need for all to participate in debate.

I am off the fence (i support, you do not) as you are, I have tried to offer a way forward for those that Hunting effect and/or close to it,

no one can tell me that idiots like Tony Banks has the first idea about hunting or any rural matter,

no one can tell me that such a draconian act as the Parliament Act should have been used on such an irrelevant issue,

no one can tell me that a large donation from League against cruel sports and no doubt the rspca, did not go someway to deciding nu labour policy

How far will this go, well lacs has already said they will target shooting next, and then no doubt fishing, with shooting we will see the end of moorlands as this is not a natrual part of the landscape (created in roman times for game birds), it is the shooters that keep this landscape for us, like many of the hunts keep hedgerows trimmed and in good condition (it gives them something to jump over), it is like the rspca, they don't mind accepting data collected by hunts and shooters on all aspects of wildlife, something in which they do not have manpower to carry out themselves, yet want this resource banned (double standards, fits well with nu labour don't it).

I do not believe UKIP are on the fence, I think my way of thinking allows for a difference of opinion, come the election those of us that are standing may need to give a personnal opinion (dependent on where we may be standing), I have the courage of my convictions and will say what I believe, I will not water it down, after all I'm not a tory, lib dem or nu labour meal ticket politician.

Dave

Bobby-Veritas's Boy · 04-01-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

BB a bit of a daft reply, and most definetly not thought out.

By giving locol referendums it allows sitting UKIP MPs the choice of which side to campaign for in that respect UKIP allows for different opinions to thrive within one party.

Fox Hunting can be clearly defined as a rural activity and can therefore be sorted out at a local level, people in large towns and cities have no reason to get involved, whereas smoking, disablment issues affect nationally, so the need for all to participate in debate.

I am off the fence (i support, you do not) as you are, I have tried to offer a way forward for those that Hunting effect and/or close to it,

no one can tell me that idiots like Tony Banks has the first idea about hunting or any rural matter,

no one can tell me that such a draconian act as the Parliament Act should have been used on such an irrelevant issue,

no one can tell me that a large donation from League against cruel sports and no doubt the rspca, did not go someway to deciding nu labour policy

How far will this go, well lacs has already said they will target shooting next, and then no doubt fishing, with shooting we will see the end of moorlands as this is not a natrual part of the landscape (created in roman times for game birds), it is the shooters that keep this landscape for us, like many of the hunts keep hedgerows trimmed and in good condition (it gives them something to jump over), it is like the rspca, they don't mind accepting data collected by hunts and shooters on all aspects of wildlife, something in which they do not have manpower to carry out themselves, yet want this resource banned (double standards, fits well with nu labour don't it).

I do not believe UKIP are on the fence, I think my way of thinking allows for a difference of opinion, come the election those of us that are standing may need to give a personnal opinion (dependent on where we may be standing), I have the courage of my convictions and will say what I believe, I will not water it down, after all I'm not a tory, lib dem or nu labour meal ticket politician.

Dave, you've done it, you've converted me, I can see now, how could I have been so blind. Of course we must keep hunting, as you said all the hedgerows are so tidy, it's well worth ripping exhausted foxes and stags to bits if it means that the hedgerows are at a nice level,not to high, not to low, after all the hounds have to get over them. The other plus you forgot to mention of course is all the jobs being protected. There would be an absolute disaster in the world of sherry if hunting was to stop, all those jolly snifters gone forever.

Then again maybe I'm not converted, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As for your other question, what would I do if UKIP don't support the banning of hunting. Well if they officially come out and say they're in favour of it, I will resign. If they can't6 make up their mind one way or the other, I will use the opportunity to try and persuede them to adopt a banning policy. That's democracy!

Dave

Dave · 04-01-2005, 02:20 PM

BB quite happy to agree to disagree, but I would ask that you are a little bit more open minded on the subject, you obviously have strong opinions but have answered with sarcasm instead of cojent reasoning, which is a shame.

Dave

Nick Moody · 05-01-2005, 05:43 PM

I hope that the fox hunting ban will be repealed at the earliest opportunity. It already seems unlikely that the ban will come INTO phpbb_force on February 19th anyway, so the Gov't must realise that they are trying to introduce a repressive piece of legislation. I do not hunt but am completely in favour of it. I have talked about it many times over the years with a wide social mixture. The vast majority of people in my experience who want to ban it are class prejudiced, ignorant (never been anywhere near a hunt) or hypocritcal. If it's ok by law to hunt a rabbit with two dogs why shouldn't it be legal to hunt a fox with 25. Setting that argument aside, democracy means more than the majority always getting their way, although I do not believe that the majority of the British people care whether fox hunting is banned or not. There are also plenty of people who want to see boxing banned by the way, should they get their way? If you truly believe in the freedom of the individual and an open society then you will try to keep bans to a minimum. You can of course not participate yourself and try to persuade others not do do it.

barrymx5 · 05-01-2005, 07:53 PM

So paedophiles are OK and should be alowed to practice in their own areas should they if they can muster enough twisted local votes? Hope its not in the country, where I live, because we already have enough sadistic types who enjoy torturing defenceless animals! Come off it, right and wrong should be enforced throughout our splendid land. And democracy should prevail. There is a majority to ban hunting even in the country. And UKIP is best to avoid this emotive issue if it wants to win votes.

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

03-01-2005, 01:31 AM	#81 (permalink)
barrymx5 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Somerset Posts: 20	I have been too busy celebrating to follow this thread for the last week or so but can understand BB feeling isolated. He is spot on in my book - and, for what it is worth, I live in the country and have never voted Labour in my life. My point has always been that the hunting issue is now settled and UKIP (Man included) should accept that and concentrate on the important issue of securing enough votes to get us out of the wretched EU. We will not do that by squabbling amongst ourselves about past (emotive) issues. UKIP argues, rightly, that the majority oppose the EU and their view should be reflected by action; the majority of voters and MPs are against hunting with hounds and have accordingly banned it. End of story. Now if we want to start including real animal welfare issues which are still outstanding, such as intensive (factory) farming, transport of farm animals, vivisection, ritual Jewish and Islamic slaughter, fur farming etc etc in the UKIP manifesto then those could win us votes.

03-01-2005, 03:10 AM	#82 (permalink)
Sarumano Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Salisbury Posts: 309	a) Hunting should be -as someone else suggested way back- the subject of a local referendum, which UKIP supports. b) My own view, for what it's worth, is that you may hunt what you like. As long as you eat it afterwards.

04-01-2005, 09:18 AM	#84 (permalink)
Dave Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 229	Sarumano said "Hunting should be -as someone else suggested way back- the subject of a local referendum, which UKIP supports". Below is my answer that I think Sarumano is referring to: "UKIP believe in giving power back to the people in local referendums, for instance where hunting takes place a referendum should be held, where no hunting takes place no referendum, I havent noticed the Brixton stag hounds out of late or the Birmingham City hunt riding out lately either, inner city and urban MPs should concentrate more on HUNTING drug dealers and BANNING drive by SHOOTINGS, and leave rural affairs to rural peoples" My personal view is that this had not alot to do with cruelty but more to do with an imagined class war (lets give the toffs a bloody nose) and funding for the labour party. What has been achieved by the ban is lots of working class people, stable lads/girls, farriers, vets etc, to poorer lives (lower wages, loss of jobs), the fox has been condemmed to exstinction (hunts tend to take out old and infirm, and a few cubs during cubbing season), shooting and gassing will be less discriminate and therefore many more will be killed. Those who think the issue is settled are very wrong, The Parliament Act should never be used for such a minor issue, MPs do not have the intelligence nor the knowledge to deal with such emotive issues especially inner city and urban MPs, and donations from interested third parties should never make policy. And I will get one of my answers in now, yes a minor issue, compared to Health, Taxation, Economy, Needless Wars, the eu etc,etc, Hunting with hounds is indeed a very very minor issue, and the Government should be attacked on it at every available oppotunity. Dave

04-01-2005, 11:36 AM	#86 (permalink)
Dave Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 229	BB a bit of a daft reply, and most definetly not thought out. By giving locol referendums it allows sitting UKIP MPs the choice of which side to campaign for in that respect UKIP allows for different opinions to thrive within one party. Fox Hunting can be clearly defined as a rural activity and can therefore be sorted out at a local level, people in large towns and cities have no reason to get involved, whereas smoking, disablment issues affect nationally, so the need for all to participate in debate. I am off the fence (i support, you do not) as you are, I have tried to offer a way forward for those that Hunting effect and/or close to it, no one can tell me that idiots like Tony Banks has the first idea about hunting or any rural matter, no one can tell me that such a draconian act as the Parliament Act should have been used on such an irrelevant issue, no one can tell me that a large donation from League against cruel sports and no doubt the rspca, did not go someway to deciding nu labour policy How far will this go, well lacs has already said they will target shooting next, and then no doubt fishing, with shooting we will see the end of moorlands as this is not a natrual part of the landscape (created in roman times for game birds), it is the shooters that keep this landscape for us, like many of the hunts keep hedgerows trimmed and in good condition (it gives them something to jump over), it is like the rspca, they don't mind accepting data collected by hunts and shooters on all aspects of wildlife, something in which they do not have manpower to carry out themselves, yet want this resource banned (double standards, fits well with nu labour don't it). I do not believe UKIP are on the fence, I think my way of thinking allows for a difference of opinion, come the election those of us that are standing may need to give a personnal opinion (dependent on where we may be standing), I have the courage of my convictions and will say what I believe, I will not water it down, after all I'm not a tory, lib dem or nu labour meal ticket politician. Dave

04-01-2005, 02:20 PM	#88 (permalink)
Dave Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 229	BB quite happy to agree to disagree, but I would ask that you are a little bit more open minded on the subject, you obviously have strong opinions but have answered with sarcasm instead of cojent reasoning, which is a shame. Dave

05-01-2005, 05:43 PM	#89 (permalink)
Nick Moody Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 100	I hope that the fox hunting ban will be repealed at the earliest opportunity. It already seems unlikely that the ban will come INTO phpbb_force on February 19th anyway, so the Gov't must realise that they are trying to introduce a repressive piece of legislation. I do not hunt but am completely in favour of it. I have talked about it many times over the years with a wide social mixture. The vast majority of people in my experience who want to ban it are class prejudiced, ignorant (never been anywhere near a hunt) or hypocritcal. If it's ok by law to hunt a rabbit with two dogs why shouldn't it be legal to hunt a fox with 25. Setting that argument aside, democracy means more than the majority always getting their way, although I do not believe that the majority of the British people care whether fox hunting is banned or not. There are also plenty of people who want to see boxing banned by the way, should they get their way? If you truly believe in the freedom of the individual and an open society then you will try to keep bans to a minimum. You can of course not participate yourself and try to persuade others not do do it.

05-01-2005, 07:53 PM	#90 (permalink)
barrymx5 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Somerset Posts: 20	So paedophiles are OK and should be alowed to practice in their own areas should they if they can muster enough twisted local votes? Hope its not in the country, where I live, because we already have enough sadistic types who enjoy torturing defenceless animals! Come off it, right and wrong should be enforced throughout our splendid land. And democracy should prevail. There is a majority to ban hunting even in the country. And UKIP is best to avoid this emotive issue if it wants to win votes.