[Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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The only crumb of comfort here is that this singularly odious piece of legislation will be repealed the moment the Tories are back in power.

[mrmassive]

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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.??

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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?

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?

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.

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)?

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.

.

Why is it odious?

Hang on just who is the minority here?

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

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.

Originally Posted by scastle

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?

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.

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)?

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.

Why is it odious?

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Hang on just who is the minority here?

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

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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).

Originally Posted by scastle

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)?

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.

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).

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.

[mrmassive]

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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

Originally Posted by mrmassive

The British Empire is dead. The Stiff Upper Lip is dead. It has died so should fox hunting die with it

QED.

[mrmassive]

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.

[bopdude]

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 ??

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by bopdude

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 ??

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...

Originally Posted by scastle

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...

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).

[Nor]

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.