Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scastle
That depends on whether most non-smokers actually object to other people smoking, or don't care whether other people smoke.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
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).
|
I guess as it is a palace the queen or her appointees get to invite who they want into the place including the Met.