[Merged] Foxhunting Ban and the Commons Invasion

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

Fake bomb 'smuggled into Commons'

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.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by andy 1

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.

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

Originally Posted by andy 1

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.

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.

[etccarmageddon]

...in my book anybody who gets there jollies killing animals,needs to get there head examined.

Originally Posted by andy 1

...i certainly don't have to be upper class to know that hunting with dogs is a cruel sport.

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.

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

[mrmassive]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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?

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

[sir_drinks_alot]

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