[Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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).

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by 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.

They are sort of linked through the protest yesterday.

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..

Originally Posted by bopdude

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.

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.

[SMHarman]

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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

Originally Posted by andy 1

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.

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.

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.

[Alan Waddington]

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.

Originally Posted by Alan Waddington

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.

moderator baiting perhaps

[Alan Waddington]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by andy 1

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.

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?

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