[Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Some protestors have managed to break in the Houses of Parliament while they are debating the hunting bill :erm:

Live on the news channels atm, looks like some bums need kicking AGAIN

4 protestors appeared from the side of the room behind the Speaker, 1 from the back and chaos then ensued

Re: Security Breach Again
 

It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that the seat of our democracy is safe from intruders :(

Once again we are faced with the dillema - increase security, and upset the civil rights morons, I mean activists, or keep it as it is, and allow anyone who tries hard enough to get into the inner sanctums of our establishment.

Yet again the questions will be:

Q: what if it was a terrorist attack?
A: it wasn't

Q: but what if it was.
A: but it wasn't so that is an irrelevant quesion.

Ad infinitum.


Ah well... (waits for an engaging debate on security and civil rights...)

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Its unbelievable how lax the security is. Our whole parliament could have been wiped out.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Can't even begin to imagine if they had bombs/guns etc. What the hell is going on, how are these people getting past security. Well, these things come in threes so whats next ???

Just watching the clip on Sky News and, no discrimination here, the security seem to be quite older chaps who it seems were no match for the protestors, they were quite easily brushed aside.........

Re: Security Breach Again
 

It makes you wonder how on earth Guy Fawkes failed... :eek:

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Security won't be taken seriously until someone breaks in with a machine gun and shoots them all...

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Its because security in the house is not controlled by the police, but the master at arms. Who is an old bloke with a sword and clearly an outdated knowledge of security.

The worst thing about this, is its just after new security measures were put in place after a lengthy investigation after the flour incident. Its shocking.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

You broke into Parliament in the days of Guy Fawkes, and you got Hung/Guilotined/Decapitated in nasty ways. It was a far better means of prevention :D

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Heard somewhere that the met police let them in because they decided they weren't a threat. Hard to believe if thats true. Fair enough, don't shoot them if they aren't a threat but don't let them in. Whack em in the forehead with the butt :)

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Strange how the politicians didnt twig as to why they did it. I'm not condoneing their actions, but I am disgraced by the current methods of the commons. How dare they bypass the lords on this issue. The lords are not biased with respect to elections and being voted in and such. They are in a better position to make unbiased decisions than the commons, yet this motion has failed the lords the first time. So they skip them the second time ? somthings not quite rite here droves of people are protesting outside as well, they wont be heard / known about as the politicians are isolated from the public outcry until its to late.
Quite frankly it stinks, also notice how few people were in the chamber to how many were there afterwards, it seems the number of people increased 4 fold, what were they doing when they're paid to debate not sit and have coffee and ignore it

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Guy Fawkes was probably an innocent of a contrived conspiracy to make James 1st more attractive to the country.Now if you want real conspiracy theories this is one that should suit. ;)

Frankly I think a few foxhunters are a better prospect than animal rights activists.The latter have some very worrying tactics. :(

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Well, if you want to take a democratic stand in favour of the hunting lobby, vote Tory. Michael Howard is committed to repealing this nasty little piece of class-war legislation when they return to power.

I was spitting fury as I drove to work this morning listening to a Guardian columnist bleating on about how hunting has to be abolished as it is one of the last remnants of the feudal system which kept the aristocrats in power and the peasants in line. How dare he, or anyone, presume to make laws based on such an ideological notion?

I tell you, there are some people in this country who pay lip service to the idea of democracy when what they really want to do is smooth-talk their way into power and then use their position to tell everyone what to do and how to think. And I find that a great many of them are lurking on the back benches of the Labour party. It's chilling.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Debs, the security is run by a private company + the Metropolitian Police, we went to London in March on a lobby of parliament, the security then was tight due to the war in Iraq, you had to go through 3 searches then go through an Xray machine to make sure you weren't carrying any guns. People can only get into the house chambers if they are invited by their own MP, we was invited by Alan Meale Labour MP for Mansfield, we got to speak to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown Alan Meale, and several other MP's. It's not that easy to get in there honest. If you are ever in London I urge you to take a look round the houses of Parliament, you can go in on a visit but you are restricted to the main foyer and cafe areas. Hope this clers it up a little? :D :D :D

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I agree - I got in to the public gallery 18 months ago and got frisked 3 times, went through 4 metal detectors and and x-ray machine and STILL had burly security guards milling about.

So how on earth did these guys get through?

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Nidge, I have actually been inside the Houses of Parliament, I went with school many years ago, in fact I feel that ancient I think the PM was Winston Churchill :D :D :D TBH I can't remember that much about it but I don't think a gaggle of giggling schoolgirls presented much of a security risk, we went for Prime Ministers Questions. Was all very exciting stuff at the time

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Prime Ministers Questions is the one we went to, I have to agree it was well boring :td: :td: :td: :td:

Re: Security Breach Again
 

The Whole of westminster needs a state of the art safety system, i am talking about a control room, cameras, special police with expert training, the underground has NO decent protection! It right under the bloody offices and next to parliment.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

The houses of Parliament have a maze of tunnels linking it to No10 downing Street and all the offices connected to the Government. They have cameras all over the place.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

well i think there should be more and armed expertly trained guards around no 10 and oother goverment buildings especcially in the buildings themselfs and a clear policy to shoot any git thast a intruder, yes, even if they are wearing a funny hat

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Trouble is, your damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.

Nothing is full-proof. If you design something, someone will design some way round it. They'll find a weak spot. It comes to the point you over engineer it to the point of American level security (They take into account truck-bombs which a bit of safety glass won't stop and are much easier to carry out), and then everyone says they are paranoid, scare-mongering, and security is too tight.

You don't have to get into the building to kill a politician, and in some respects it is probably easier if you didn't.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Frankly at the time this farce was unfolding on the 24 hour news reports I was reading about the court case in which a man was shot dead after a car chase in excess of 100 mph by a man seeking to get money to buy drugs while his girlfrieind's two small children were in the back seat and I found I could not get worked up one way or the other about foxhunting.

I think we have much worse issues to sort out than whether people should have the right to hunt or not.Gun crime is a serious issue in some parts of the country and I feel this is something that should be discussed with far more passion by our MPs than that shown to 'hunting'.


Incog

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I'm like you Coggy, I just cant get worked up one way or another but I honestly think that anyone that is caught trespassing either at Parliament or a royal property should be shot on sight. We could be looking at a country without a government building today if they had been suicide bombers. :(

Very very stupid people, certainly not the way to influence the public toward your way of thinking :(

Re: Security Breach Again
 

For clarity, are you for or against fox hunting Towny?

I can see you disagree with the way the law is proposed to be brought about.

Ban on hunting with dogs
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3660294.stm

What do you think?

The thugging behaviour by the protesters astounds me tbh. How can they expect to gain respect and be taken seriously when they're behaving like criminals ?

More to the matter at hand... I'm kinda in the middle when it comes to hunting foxes, with dogs. I can see where the country folk are coming from with regards to over population of foxes potentially killing there own animals.. then again it seems rather barbaric.

No doubt that the act will get revoked by the lords, but they're planning on enforcing a parlimentary act to get it through. Seems labour have suceeded in banning something else :shrug:

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I heard about this on the news on the way up the M1, radio 1 had a phone in poll and it came out 65% in favour of keeping hunting with dogs. The British public have spoken so what will happen ? will the government push it through despite public opinion, if so are we then living in some sort of starlinist state where freedom of speech and the will of the people doesn't matter ???

Makes you wonder whats next.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I doubt that poll is anything to go by, first of all those who would support the law are not going to be the ones who are not affected by the ban so are less likely to do something like pphone in. Meanwhile those who dont want it will be outraged and doing everything.

People who will lose something are more likely to fight to keep it than those who wont lose anything

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I thought it was fantastic :tu: It's about time democracy got some balls back - we've been sleeping far too long in this country. Democracy in action - the right to protest. More power to them.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Hmmmm...... and what would happen then? we end up with someone who actually knows something about the country they are supposed to be running apart from their own little niche of it? Perhaps someone who cares about the people? Maybe even someone who wants to cut taxes on fuel, stop motorists being treated as criminals?

And this would be a bad thing how?

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I suppose once this is illegal perhaps those who want to carry on with killing foxes could instead try it in countries which allow it?

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Primarily I'm for people being allowed to do what they want without the Government deciding the issue for them. As a secondary issue, I wouldn't go fox hunting myself but unlike many I don't purport to understand the arguments about pest control and whether hunting with dogs or with a shotgun is more effective. To me it is not blatantly, outrageously cruel and it infringes no-one's human rights. Therefore the Government should leave it alone and should certainly not be threatening to abuse its power by invoking the Parliament Act, which was designed to be used over issues of major national importance, and not in persecution of minority interests.

Interestingly, that ignorant Guardian-writing class warrior who was on R4 this morning was in complete agreement with the pro-hunting lobby on one thing, the 'animal rights' issue is a diversion, this is about class struggle, pure and simple.

Re: Ban on hunting with dogs
 

I know hunting is a real divisive issue, but this is the way I feel about it.

I'm a live and let live kinda guy. I have never been hunting. I most probably never will. I doubt I could kill anything nice and fluffy, (although if it was coming to kill me I would). That said, I don't go round telling people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't do. So long as they aren't hurting anyone (human, that is), generally, i'll let people do what they want. Another just as valid example is, i'm not gay, and I doubt I ever will be. That doesn't mean I should go round telling gay people they shouldn't be gay.

Of course, that means everyone else should show me the same courtesy, and if I want to do something (like this time in Florida, i've really taken up target shooting), then noone else has the right to tell me what I can and can't do. Trouble is, they never do.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I wish they would get their terminology correct - hunting with hounds and hunting with dogs are two different things. The latter includes the use of dogs for the purposes of pest and vermin control and hunting by individuals for food (rather than recreation). Certainly if the use of dogs in pest control is banned, then we can look forward to some interesting problems - we're already seeing foxes in cities.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

And how will that get rid of the problem, I can't speak for all fox hunting / hunters but we used to run a pheasant shoot near Penrith, we would stock the various pockets of woodland with poults and rear them in ' runs ' the fox's would spook the young uns and they would try to get through the mess fence, only thing is the only thing that would fit through was there heads, along comes mister fox and just bites off there heads. In this case, I really had no feelings for fox's as they were not hunting to eat but killing for killing's sake.

Re: Ban on hunting with dogs
 

I just hope that they don't expand this onto fishing next.

Re: Security Breach Again
 

The protestors who were getting smacked up by the police, perhaps now they know how the fox feels...ah no, sorry, the protestors actually have a choice to walk away, don't they?

Re: Security Breach Again
 

So once again our glorious government sticks it nose it where it doesn't belong. Give it another few years and we won't be able to open our front doors without something we do being declared illegal (unless of course you are a convicted thug, then you will be able to do as you like because of your "abused" background) ......

Re: Security Breach Again
 

I don't have a problem with people killing foxes (they are considered vermin after all). Assmuming it is done quickly and (as far as possible) humanely.

The thing I don't like about hunting is that the fox spends the last few hours of it's life terrified. The other thing I don't like is that the hounds on the hunt can actually become so wound up that they will rip any small animal that crosses their path to pieces (I have seen photos of this). Assuming you own a dog (I don't know if you do), how would you feel if you happened to be out walking the dog in the woods, and the dog was ripped to pieces by several hounds from a passing hunt?

:erm: Why shouldn't the government stick it's nose in to this? It's something a lot of voters feel quite strongly about (whether for or against). Why should the Government stand by and allow creulty to animals (even vermin such as foxes)?

Re: Ban on hunting with dogs
 

It would be nice to see a Hunt goin on. To see the man who sits on his horse. Sounds the Bugle. "Tally Ho." The dogs give chance to Him. Ripp Him to shreds. Then I go up cut off his tail. Smear the blood on one of the dogs. Who's had his first kill and say to the bugle player. "Sorry ol chap. Mighty sporty what.You did well jolly good show ol chap." Then I would put my monicle back on. :D

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

There are two clear 'threads' to this discussion, the rights and wrongs of fox huntnig and the rights and wrongs of invading the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the two separate topics we've had going on over this keep tripping over each other so I've merged them. :)

Re: Security Breach Again
 

Since when have foxes been vermin. Surely the human race is vermin. As we have done much damage to the planet more than what foxs has done . We kill chickens , so do foxes! But we kill more than just that dont we??. As I have quoted in my last post previous to this. It would be nice to see the hunters become the hunted . When you have the advantage where is the sport in that.? Where is the challenge.? There isn't one simple as that. How manyn people are there that have even seen a fox besides a picture.? I start to think why?????????

The Farmers where I live banned the hunts on their land many years ago. Due to the damage that they do tramplin all over their land. Even dogs have been killed over this. It's a farmers right to kill dogs that stray on their land. I even know one farmer who did shoot some dogs on a hunt and I was one of the hands that blasted them. Legally of course :D

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I've a better idea.It's also much more of a challenge than hunting foxes.

It's allowing licensed hunting of hunt saboteurs.No don't laugh,I'm being perfectly serious.This way both sides win.The hunt saboteurs are protecting the foxes and the hunters and dogs still get to enjoy all the tradition and fun of the hunt. :D

Yes,the problem of controlling foxes and other vermin will still have to be addressed.Foxes are indiscriminate predaters killing 6 chickens to get just one chicken.If they aren't controlled then there will be too many of them chasing too small a source of food which gradually will lessen as they are such indiscriminate killers.The health generally of the fox population will drop and there the real cruelty begins.We need to cull any wild animal that is in danger of overbreeding and over running it's food source.I think hunting with dogs in the 21st century is an anachronism and that it is time to find much more humane ways to achieve the end result.I would also question just how effective the present way of fox hunting is in real terms.Just how much of the fox population are actually controlled by these methods?

However as I've said already I'm not as bothered about banning these pastimes as I am about other issues which I consider much more important at the present time.We have far too much violent crimes and violent gangs and there are far too many youngsters with access to guns on our streets.We really need to come up with an effective way of dealing with drugs too.We have to make sure that our government (no matter how ineffectual they are) are properly and securely protected whilst being available to the voters.Why hunting is regarded as such a big issue by so many Labour MP's when so much else needs sorting beats me.How about really sorting out our education system,the National Health Service FIRST.There truly is a lot more to be dealt with elsewhere and I really think this is an issue to be dealt with lower down on the TO DO LIST.

Incog.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I agree with you scastle. You should of said in your post that hunters are vermin not foxes :D

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

The House of Commons now does need to find new security ways to stop the vermin entering the building. :D

Re: Security Breach Again
 

This is actually a pretty fundamental question about what we believe Government is for.

Should a government in general exist to tell us what we can do, or what we can't?
Should a government ban anything simply because a majority of people believe that thing to be wrong? (thereby putting a whole lot of minority pursuits, certain religions included, at risk)

I think Government's role is to ensure an environment exists in the country to allow people to get on with their lives, as far as possible, without let or hindrance. The existence of foxhunting does not cause let or hindrance to anyone. The existence of foxes, on the contrary, causes a good deal of hindrance to certain farmers.

As for animal cruelty, if the Government was genuinely concerned about that as an issue, there is a lengthy list of animal cruelty issues far more serious than this that they could tackle first. This has nothing to do with animal cruelty; that is pure smokescreen designed to obscure one disgusting fact: that the Labour back-benches are still populated by Marxist dinosaurs who wish to ban certain pursuits and traditions purely and simply because they perceive them to represent a social class they would rather did not exist. Whatever Government is for, Government for the purposes of blindly imposing ideology is not it.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Actually, I did hear one hunt supporter saying it is the most efficient way to kill foxes. Not sure how he can justify that, as I would not call using many people, many dogs and many horses (don't know the exact figures) to kill 1 fox efficient.

I've always thought it would be far more efficient for a single hunter to go and shoot the fox. Not necessarily more humane, but more efficient.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Out of interest, how would he find the fox, once banned from using a dog to sniff it out? How would he pursue it, if his first shot went astray, without a horse?

Still, all this is a side issue, the left-wing idealoges are having a party at Westminster and are making a mockery of democracy. Democracy doesn't just mean that the majority dictates what the minority is allowed or not allowed to do.

The only crumb of comfort here is that this singularly odious piece of legislation will be repealed the moment the Tories are back in power.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

The saying goes as sly as a fox. As cunning as a fox. Maybe one hunter is not good enough. Maybe a 100-1 is better odds. But when has the Human race ever been fair.??

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I was merely making the point that using many people, dogs and horses to catch one fox is not, in my opinion, efficient. I would be suprised if there weren't more efficient methods of fox capture available. However, even if one hunter did need a horse and dog to help him catch the fox, surely that is more efficient that dozens of them?

I may be over simplifying here, but isn't the law supposed to reflect what the average person would consider acceptable? Therefore, if the majority of people object (or agree with) fox hunting, isn't it perfectly reasonable to assume that the average person would largely agree with the majority?

Or have I got it wrong, and is democracy (and the law) supposed to reflect the minority opinion (which is what you appear to be saying)?

.

Why is it odious?

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Hang on just who is the minority here?

Both sides are claiming the other side is in the minority. :D

What we need to determine what the public REALLY wants is to have a referendum.Not a series of phone in ballots or newspaper run surveys.

How about a chance to actually say what we think as a whole country.Oh and don't say we already had that when we had a general election because I wasn't even thinking about foxhunting when I last voted.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

By that measure, smoking, a passtime enjoyed by fewer than one in three people and faced with mounting evidence of harm even to those who don't partake, should have been declared illegal years ago.

The Law should seek to prevent that which society as a whole considers dangerous or objectionable, particularly those things which by their nature threaten society itself. It should certainly not be used to ban on a whim those pursuits that are enjoyed by the minority simply because the majority don't like it. That's not democracy, it's abuse of power.

It's not an issue of whether democracy should reflect minority opinion, as I said above, there is more to democracy than the bigger group of people telling the smaller group of people what to do (or not). But, as you mention it, I do think it is the responsibility of a democratic society to protect minority rights. If minority rights and views are not safeguarded, then pretty quickly you don't have a democracy any more.

Because a cabal of left-wing idealogues are hiding behind the smokescreen of animal rights to ban something they dislike on the basis of it being a 'symbol of the aristocracy'. Banning something because you don't like the background of those who take part in it is intolerance of the worst kind and sets a worrying precedent.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

True. We should have a referendum, because, TBH, even though the government did state they would ban fox hunting, the last general election was so long ago that people may have changed their opinion.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

That depends on whether most non-smokers actually object to other people smoking, or don't care whether other people smoke.

True to a certain extent. However, society as a whole very rarely agrees what is wrong and right, so majority rule has to be used sometimes.

True, and I personally agree with the protection of rights for everyone. Otherwise we would end up with dictatorship. However, protecting minority rights does have a limit. What if the "rights" of a minority included ritual sacrifice of humans (extreme example I know)?

Tony doesn't seem to have listened much to left wingers before. How come he is doing it now? It's probably true that some left wingers, and some politicians on both sides have leapt on this for publicity (that seems to be the nature of some politicians though - if a view seems trendy, make out you agree), but I suspect quite a few actually do object to fox hunting itself, rather than the people who partake.

BTW, in case you haven't guessed, although I am not left wing, nor would I ever vote for the Labour party, I don't agree with fox hunting.

I do find it odd, however, that it's been on the backburner for years, then suddenly becomes an issue when a General Election is near (ish).

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

This proves the point rather neatly. Human sacrifice is something that threatens society as a whole due to its tendency to kill people. And as no man is an island entire of itself, the death of one person affects many, therefore it is a societal issue, therefore it's quite right for the Law to intervene. Nobody has yet demonstrated to me the corrosive effect on society of foxhunting, except for those of course who believe that the exisence of a sport that props up the aristocracy is bad for society.

Labour has been committed to banning it for quite some time but thankfully has given the lion's share of Parliamentary time to issues of genuine importance. Even when they have tried to enact a ban in the past, the Lords have effectively shredded the legislation and sent it back to the Commons for amendment. Even Tony knows you can't just invoke the Parliament Act willy nilly, so he has had to try and fail a number of times before reaching this final point.

As for the issue of listening to his backbenchers, it has always been an issue of how the facade of New Labour maintains control over the predominantly Old Labourite back benches and grass roots. In the early years of the Labour Government it was enough to scare them with threats of another two decades in opposition if they screwed up again. Seven years later that won't wash and Tony is going to have to throw Skinner and his ilk more sops like this to keep them on side.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Yes I again agree with you scastle. But in the mean time while we decide what is right and what is wrong . Should the fox be wiped out to extinction like then rest of so many animals. If I was a fox should I have to move to Scotland to be free from beeing hunted or should I be free full stop. We are the top of the food chain. We eat what we want as long as it tastes good. But how many of us eat Foxes. It's wrong full stop. So what if they kill a few chicken's . We eat and breed and kill billions a year. The government could rembirse, the framers for the loss of chickens killed each year by foxes to preserve them. Foxes don't harm people in any way. Iv'e never heard of a fox killing a person. But Iv'e heard of people killing a fox. If a fox spreads germs ect Iv'e never caught anything yet and I would like to hear different if Possible. The British Empire is dead. The Stiff Upper Lip is dead. It has died so should fox hunting die with it :tu:

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

QED. :rolleyes:

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

There's also an actor who's into fox hunting. He's know as the Jackle . He's a bloody disgrace to the name. He should change his last name big time. He's not a Fox.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Just a quick side step, but still to do with the ' invasion ' of the chamber, I've just heard on the radio that the police are not allowed into the chamber unless invited, this means a no go area within our government buildings, what they get up to is anyone's guess, murder, drugs, who knows ? no-one because its not policed, surely double standards there when they've given police the right to " stop and search " us mere mortals ??

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Actually, as I understand it, the police are not allowed on any private property (although owned by the taxpayer, it sounds like Parliament is considered private property) unless they are invited or have a warrant. I know that we had a lot of trouble at my college (enough that the police got involved), but the police could not enter the college until invited to do so.

I dread to think what goes on in Parliament though...

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I think the police can go anywhere they want if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal offence is in progress. They aren't vampires ;)

The problem here is that the House of Commons is in a building called the Palace of Westminster. As a Royal palace it's exempt from all kinds of laws that apply elsewhere (most disgracefully, a lot of Health and Safety at Work legislation doesn't apply, so if you ever get a job there don't injure yourself).

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

hmm we merged these 2 different subjects ? One about commons security and one about hunting with dogs. Folk are too eager to click the merge button sometimes.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Actually, until recently, a lot of the law (particularly the laws governing listed buildings and planning permission) did not cover a lot of government owned buildings. Hence, despite the fact it was (and is) grade 1 listed, the building I work in now was badly damaged by the Ministry of Defence when they used it as part of the Royal Naval College. Anyway, I digress.

Actually, going back to my college days. I don't know what would have happened had the police actually been called to an incident, as it didn't happen while I was there, but I suspect that if a crime were being commited, or had been commited, the college would have happily invited the police in anyway (in fact they did actively encourage the police to come in at any time). The same may be true of Parliament.

However, I do think you are right.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

They are sort of linked through the protest yesterday.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

all i can say is roll on the 31st of july 2006.

oh and by the way GET ORF MY LAND or you'll get this twelve bore up your *rse..

Re: Security Breach Again
 

whats up bopdude where you upset because the fox got to kill the pheasants before you and your friends did.
either way the pheasants ended up dead.and did you kill just to eat.i doubt it i bet you and your friends had your fun first shooting them.
because in my book anybody who gets there jollies killing animals,needs to get there head examined.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

That depends on whether most non fox hunters actually object to fox hunting, or don't care whether others fox hunt.

Personally I find smoking more objectionable. Now that it is banned in most buildings you cannot walk along the street without being covered in smoke, add that to the car pollution and the chance of fresh air in London is now 0. Then along with that smokers seem to have this wonderful ability to wave a burning stick around with total disregard to the limbs clothes and possesions of anyone around them, and hold the cigarette over away from them when not inhaling to prevent the smoke getting in their eyes.

Fox hunting on the other hand occurs on open space away from my personal space and appears to work as a way to control the fox population. The govt. already has blood on its hands with the death of the 13 year old boy last week from a fox hunter with a torch and a rifle and the birdwatcher with a stomach full of shrapnel probably has words to say on this matter too. If control becomes confined to gassing sets and shooting with rifles then pretty soon we will have no fox population as they will take out young and old indescriminantly, fox hunting plucks off the weaker,

I am ambivilent about fox hunting, but fairly passionate about the railroading of this legislation it is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precident.

I guess as it is a palace the queen or her appointees get to invite who they want into the place including the Met.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

[QUOTE=SMHarman]
I am ambivilent about fox hunting, but fairly passionate about the railroading of this legislation it is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precident.

oh no it doesn't.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

who says the tories will get back in power.and it may be odious to you,but it is like a breath of fresh air to me.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I'm glad you feel the breath of fresh air on your face, but as I said above, I don't - I've also explained above why I think it's odious so I'm not going to start going round in circles.

As for why the Tories will eventually get back in power: The Lib Dems have currently won a pile of votes from traditional Tory voters who would never bring themselves to vote Labour. The problem with that is, the Lib Dems are easily to the left of Labour on just about every issue, so their 'true' target votes come from Old Labour supporters, not Tories. Once the Tories sort themselves out, the Tory voters will come home both in positive support of the Tories and in rejection of the Lib Dems, who are getting an increasingly tough time of it from journalists and have finally to justify their policies in the same way as Labour and Tory candidates do.

Lib Dem presence in the Commons will crumble. No matter what Charles Kennedy might like to think, the Lib Dems are a poor third 'force' in British politics and are going to be that way for some time.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

maybe so chris t
but you've forgotten about another party at the next election.
i'm talking ukip.
when that old smoothy kilroy silk works is charm on the oap's, there vote will dissapear from the tories in a flash.
and labour will romp home for another term,and the ban will stand.
hooray.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I was fairly annoyed about this legislation. That's not to say i'm that keen on fox-hunting, but am wondering what other unfashionable minority activity will be next.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

moderator baiting perhaps

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

As a traditional tory voter, who voted libdem last time because the tories had lost the plot, it will very much depend on them having a set of coherent policies and an effective leader for the next election. Fortunately Labour has made enough errors in the last few years for there to be things that need putting right.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

now now i think where getting a little of topic here boys.

can i be a moderator now chris t,go on gis a job i can do that job.

yosser

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Labour stand a good chance of winning the next election, but it will be a failure by the Tories to present a loud, clear and coherent message that galvanises the electorate that will be the reason, not Robert Kilroy-Silk. The British electorate is a very sophisticated one, they won't vote en masse for a single-issue anti-Europe party at a Westminster election.

I think the Tories will un-ban hunting on principle whenever they are next in power - after an election in 2005 (unlikely) or 2010 (very Likely, I would say). However, due to the infrastructure required to run a hunt, it's unlikely there would be much in the way of hunting again if it has six years to die before being decriminalised.

Then again, there's always the possibility that the police will have a long-term problem actually preventing those who really want to hunt from doing so. Can we really expect to see riot police lining up against the Cheshire Hunt in the same way as they did against the miners in 1984?

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I would rather The torys get in that ukip! ukip are a joke of a party which just spout populist nosense to get votes knowing that they will never be called upon to act on it. Their manfisto might as well be the daily mail anyway

I support the goverment banning fox hunting and using the parliment act if needs be anyway. I cant belive that unelected officals get to block laws.

As for people who will say "thats gives too much power to the govenment" i say that if you dont like them dont vote for them or we should have a elected house of lords.

Fox huting is not a unpopular law like the iraq war was, theres those who really want it banned and really want it to stay those in the middle genereally want it banned

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Do you understand what the Parliament Act is actually for? Or why we have a second chamber in Parliament?

The House of Commons has legitimised the role and authority of the Lords each and every time it has sought to re-structure or redefine its role in the legislature. As the Commons is supreme, the current structure of the Lords is a reflection of the will of the Commons (it was MPs who voted to remove the hereditary peers, remember). And as the Commons is a democratic body, the role and make-up of the House of Lords is, fundamentally, a product of the democratic process. The Parliament Act guarantees the primacy of the Commons and was designed to ensure the safe passage of legislation this country needs to function, not to force through matters of conscience decided in the Commons on a free vote by fewer than half of all MPs.

The Lords plays an important role in our lawmaking process. Its strength lies in the fact that it is not directly elected. It can afford to take decisions and offer advice based on a longer term outlook, without need for spin or image management (as they don't have to worry about getting elected). When the Lords throws out laws designed to ban fox hunting, it does so because it recognises that banning minority pursuits for reasons of class envy is contrary to traditions of law and governance in this country.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Fake bomb 'smuggled into Commons' :rolleyes:

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

so thats why they want to ban hunting with dogs is it,class envy.
well i don't envy any of the pompous people in the house of lords,and i certainly don't have to be upper class to know that hunting with dogs is a cruel sport.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

... and gassing their dens and killing young and old is not cruel?

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Yes, and I think you need to be very careful about assuming that those who have voted to outlaw hunting have done so for the same reasons as you oppose it.

Let me be clear about this, for me personally the jury is out on the cruelty issue. I don't claim to know enough about it, and I don't accept blindly the deliberately emotive descriptions of foxes being 'torn to shreds' which are clearly designed to conclude the argument without allowing any rational discussion to take place. When I get a chance to look at it properly I might well conclude that we are better off without hunting.

However, the ban has been brought about by back-bench pressure led by a cabal of Old Labour class warriors (Dennis Skinner and the like, who frankly insulted our Parliamentary tradition during the debate by shouting that the Lords should be told to 'go to hell' over the issue). This is not just my isolated opinion, I've been Googling (so far unsuccessfully) to find you the ravings of the Guardian columnist who was interviewed on Radio 4 earlier this week and admitted candidly this very point. The banning of hunting with hounds is for these people about dismantling one of the few remaining elements of a feudal society dominated by aristocrats, and to them is as important as was removing hereditary Peers from the House of Lords.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

I agree and wonder how can something be a 'sport' when it involves killing another living thing?

why do these people take pleasure in the persuit and ultimate death of an animal?

invading the democratically elected parliment in order to further their cause just fits in nicely with their thug image.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

Ever seen the end of a fox hunt?
Spent many years working in the country on a farm, spent many afternoons chasing hunts off land they were not authorised to be on.
Have seen what little was left of a por fox after the pack of hounds had finnished with it.

Think about it 20 to 30 dogs that are bred to attack an animal after an extensive chase, the dogs DO bay for blood as much as the aristocratic ********* that think this kind of hunting is a sport. If one single dog can be capable of tearing a small child apart what is a pack of dogs going to do to a fox? They certainly are not going to chase it for miles and lick it to death. A dog kills by ripping, only big cats etc kill by a single bite to the throat, a dog tears chunks out of its victim because thats how nature works and thats how dogs kill. (watch the next time a dog is trying to get somehtign from you, see how it shakes its head violently, imagine that was a fox in the dogs mouth, flesh is going to rip......sporry for the gory details but thats how it does happen)

Now the other side of the argument, yes foxes sometimes kill chickens. Not exactly a major loss, one that is never the less preventable by Farmers investing in a little money and protecting the chickens properly.

Fox's can be pests, yes they do kill other animals but thats bloody nature for you. No matter what happens the fox does not deserve to be ripped apart whilst still alive. If you ever see a hunt (which I hope you dont) you understand that there is no sport, the fox stands no chance of escaping usually and if it did ever escape it would probably die from shock or exhuastion anyway. Its about time land owners prevented hunts. My uncle never once permitted it and had gone as far as threatening the "toffs" because they threatened to have him arrested!!! for denying them access to his land. Bunch of pompous ********* that dont live in the real world.

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

The Cheshire Hunt. I thought thats only cats smile their. But I'm wrong it's the dogs that smile. :mad: :td:

Re: [Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion
 

it now looks all but certain that the Parliament Act will be invoked
to force a ban on hunting in England and Wales this will most likely
happen with in the next faw weeks