Hundreds turn out to see Middleton Hunt on Boxing Day

York Press: The Middleton Hunt leaves Malton Market Place on its way around the town The Middleton Hunt leaves Malton Market Place on its way around the town

HUNDREDS of people turned out to see one of North Yorkshire’s most picturesque Christmas countryside traditions – the Boxing Day hunt.

About 40 riders gathered in Malton’s Market Place for the start of the Middleton Hunt. Another group set off from Driffield Showground.

Other meets by the Farndale Hunt and the Pendle Forest And Craven Hunt, as well as a meet in Bedale, were due to take place yesterday.

Joanna Newitt, treasurer of the Middleton Hunt’s supporters’ club, said: “We make five stops as we follow a trail around Malton and there were about 1,000 people in the market place to see the start of the meet.”

“It is a tradition at this time of the year and we have had a lot of support from people getting out and about on Boxing Day, including many families.

“It has been a very good turnout, helped by the mild weather.” Despite a legal ban on foxhunting, at least 300 hunts were taking place across the UK yesterday on one of the biggest days in the pursuit’s season. More than a million people were expected to attend.

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson was quoted as saying that there was no immediate prospect of the 2005 ban on hunting with dogs being repealed.

He said a free vote was intended at the “appropriate moment” but hunt supporters must do more to convince sceptics that the law should be changed.

Sir Barney White-Spunner, executive chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said he was “confident” the ban would end in the long-term.

However, the League Against Cruel Sports yesterday published the results of a poll carried out on its behalf, as well as for the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which claimed 76 per cent of those asked said they opposed legalising hunting with dogs.

Comments (198)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:08am Thu 27 Dec 12

bloodaxe says...

What's wrong with pursuing an age-old tradition. Fox hunting, bear baiting, public hangings and slavery are part of the fabric of what made us the compassionate and fair minded people we are.
What's wrong with pursuing an age-old tradition. Fox hunting, bear baiting, public hangings and slavery are part of the fabric of what made us the compassionate and fair minded people we are. bloodaxe
  • Score: 1

11:20am Thu 27 Dec 12

Zetkin says...

"Sir Barney White-Spunner, executive chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said he was “confident” the ban would end in the long-term."

That'll be why they're still training dogs to kill foxes.

Typical toff behaviour though - only obey the laws that suit you and your class.
"Sir Barney White-Spunner, executive chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said he was “confident” the ban would end in the long-term." That'll be why they're still training dogs to kill foxes. Typical toff behaviour though - only obey the laws that suit you and your class. Zetkin
  • Score: 0

11:23am Thu 27 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

So they can legally dress up in silly clothes, parade around the countryside and claim 500,000 people care. What's the problem? Let them carry on. What offends decent people is their desire to inflict cruelty on other members of the dog family.
So they can legally dress up in silly clothes, parade around the countryside and claim 500,000 people care. What's the problem? Let them carry on. What offends decent people is their desire to inflict cruelty on other members of the dog family. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

11:38am Thu 27 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...
here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time... baileyuk
  • Score: 0

11:46am Thu 27 Dec 12

Big Bad Wolf says...

If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin. Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 0

11:50am Thu 27 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

baileyuk wrote:
here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...
I agree with you that it's not a class thing anymore. But it's still an evil, and cruel pastime.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it's not a class thing anymore. But it's still an evil, and cruel pastime. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

11:53am Thu 27 Dec 12

yorkshirelad says...

The most interesting thing about the whole foxhunting debate is the apparent right some people claim that a law they don't agree with simply doesn't have to be obeyed.

The issue is not fox hunting...it's democracy and the rule of law.
The most interesting thing about the whole foxhunting debate is the apparent right some people claim that a law they don't agree with simply doesn't have to be obeyed. The issue is not fox hunting...it's democracy and the rule of law. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

11:56am Thu 27 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
Before you start labelling animals as vermin, don't forget that humans are the most destructive and most dangerous being ever to exist in the entire history of the planet.

Would you like the animals to get together and chase you across the countryside until you are exhausted and scared out of your wits then to be torn apart whilst you are still alive? Thought not. Hypocrite.
[quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.[/p][/quote]Before you start labelling animals as vermin, don't forget that humans are the most destructive and most dangerous being ever to exist in the entire history of the planet. Would you like the animals to get together and chase you across the countryside until you are exhausted and scared out of your wits then to be torn apart whilst you are still alive? Thought not. Hypocrite. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Thu 27 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

The most interesting thing about the whole foxhunting debate is the apparent right some people claim that a law they don't agree with simply doesn't have to be obeyed.

The issue is not fox hunting...it's democracy and the rule of law.

ok why dont the police attend and arrest anyone? why in fact do a lot of village bobbies either take part or attend these hunts and support it? surely a police officer would get the sack for this?? I dont wish to get into arguments as I can respect other peoples views, but please dont repeat what the media portrays, go along to a hunt and see what actually happens and then make your mind up.
The most interesting thing about the whole foxhunting debate is the apparent right some people claim that a law they don't agree with simply doesn't have to be obeyed. The issue is not fox hunting...it's democracy and the rule of law. ok why dont the police attend and arrest anyone? why in fact do a lot of village bobbies either take part or attend these hunts and support it? surely a police officer would get the sack for this?? I dont wish to get into arguments as I can respect other peoples views, but please dont repeat what the media portrays, go along to a hunt and see what actually happens and then make your mind up. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Thu 27 Dec 12

working class tory says...

The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government. It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against. As usual they were chasing the popular vote. working class tory
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.
Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Thu 27 Dec 12

bloodaxe says...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.
[quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.[/p][/quote]If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights. bloodaxe
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Thu 27 Dec 12

bloodaxe says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.
Ah, bike hunting ! A favourite sport in these posts.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.[/p][/quote]Ah, bike hunting ! A favourite sport in these posts. bloodaxe
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Thu 27 Dec 12

bloodaxe says...

working class tory wrote:
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.
You're a victim of false-consciousness.
[quote][p][bold]working class tory[/bold] wrote: The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government. It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against. As usual they were chasing the popular vote.[/p][/quote]You're a victim of false-consciousness. bloodaxe
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Thu 27 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.
here we go as i said toff this toff that,,, some married friends of mine are involved in fox hunting, they live a small rented house and work for local farmers, both work 7 days a week and with a normal working day going beyond 12 hours, both on just above minimum wage.. definitely the toff you describe,, as for supporters majority of those that attend my local hunt are either farmers, farm workers or retired folk, not the description you describe again..

as said go for yourself and see first hand instead of repeating media propaganda..
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.[/p][/quote]If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.[/p][/quote]here we go as i said toff this toff that,,, some married friends of mine are involved in fox hunting, they live a small rented house and work for local farmers, both work 7 days a week and with a normal working day going beyond 12 hours, both on just above minimum wage.. definitely the toff you describe,, as for supporters majority of those that attend my local hunt are either farmers, farm workers or retired folk, not the description you describe again.. as said go for yourself and see first hand instead of repeating media propaganda.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Theendoftheworld says...

Woody, it blatantly is a 'class thing'.
How many of those in the photo do you think are shelf-stackers at Tesco or road sweeper etc etc.
Woody, it blatantly is a 'class thing'. How many of those in the photo do you think are shelf-stackers at Tesco or road sweeper etc etc. Theendoftheworld
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Thu 27 Dec 12

marvell says...

Oscar Wilde's quote on fix hunting always makes me smile:

"...the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable..."
Oscar Wilde's quote on fix hunting always makes me smile: "...the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable..." marvell
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Thu 27 Dec 12

marvell says...

Oscar Wilde's quote on fox hunting always makes me smile:

"...the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable..."”
Oscar Wilde's quote on fox hunting always makes me smile: "...the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable..."” marvell
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Indigo75 says...

what exactly is 'picturesque' about a hunt???

It is, quite simply, a class thing. Those that can make the law are quite happy to break the law when they want to (and not just with hunting).
what exactly is 'picturesque' about a hunt??? It is, quite simply, a class thing. Those that can make the law are quite happy to break the law when they want to (and not just with hunting). Indigo75
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

Theendoftheworld wrote:
Woody, it blatantly is a 'class thing'.
How many of those in the photo do you think are shelf-stackers at Tesco or road sweeper etc etc.
Ok. Let me back up my statement. I am originally from Malton. I actually know some of the people in the photographs, and like me, that are no way "Toffs".

Forty or so years ago you would not of seen working class people being invited to join a hunt. Over the years it has become acceptable. Most of the non upper class who join hunts probably work on the land, breed the hunting dogs, look after the horses etc etc etc. No doubt they are invited to help raise the numbers as thankfully that vile blood sports numbers are dwindling rapidly, and they know it!
[quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: Woody, it blatantly is a 'class thing'. How many of those in the photo do you think are shelf-stackers at Tesco or road sweeper etc etc.[/p][/quote]Ok. Let me back up my statement. I am originally from Malton. I actually know some of the people in the photographs, and like me, that are no way "Toffs". Forty or so years ago you would not of seen working class people being invited to join a hunt. Over the years it has become acceptable. Most of the non upper class who join hunts probably work on the land, breed the hunting dogs, look after the horses etc etc etc. No doubt they are invited to help raise the numbers as thankfully that vile blood sports numbers are dwindling rapidly, and they know it! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Thu 27 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

A few points,
1) It is clearly a class issue, not because it is only done by the upper class and nouveau riche, it isn't. If you don't believe me, then check out the terrier men and other thugs that follow a hunt. It is a class issue because it is historically the 'sport' of the upper classes and that is why CaMORON wants to repeal the ban, he and his ilk make it a class issue. Otherwise they would repeal the bans on dog fighting, **** fighting etc.
2) The Press numbers don't add up. 'More than a million people were expected to attend'. Between 300 hunts, that's around 3500 at each hunt. The Middleton hunt is the largest in the Ryedale area and the Press states that hundreds were there. So how many were at the Farndale or the Saltersgate? A few dozen at most.
3) As for hunting rats, if those rats were deliberately being chased over long distances and being fed in their hunt constructed homes, then yes there would be an outcry.
A few points, 1) It is clearly a class issue, not because it is only done by the upper class and nouveau riche, it isn't. If you don't believe me, then check out the terrier men and other thugs that follow a hunt. It is a class issue because it is historically the 'sport' of the upper classes and that is why CaMORON wants to repeal the ban, he and his ilk make it a class issue. Otherwise they would repeal the bans on dog fighting, **** fighting etc. 2) The Press numbers don't add up. 'More than a million people were expected to attend'. Between 300 hunts, that's around 3500 at each hunt. The Middleton hunt is the largest in the Ryedale area and the Press states that hundreds were there. So how many were at the Farndale or the Saltersgate? A few dozen at most. 3) As for hunting rats, if those rats were deliberately being chased over long distances and being fed in their hunt constructed homes, then yes there would be an outcry. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Whistlejacket says...

..."Despite a legal ban on foxhunting, at least 300 hunts were taking place across the UK yesterday on one of the biggest days in the pursuit’s season. More than a million people were expected to attend."

Rather poor journalism here. There was no explanation that the hunts were out to follow a scent trail, or just to meet up and ride out for a while.
The conclusion that many class warriors on here seem to have reached is that the hunts were ignoring the law.
Has anyone any evidence for this?
Since even the hunt saboteurs can't be bothered to turn out nowadays, it seems unlikely.
..."Despite a legal ban on foxhunting, at least 300 hunts were taking place across the UK yesterday on one of the biggest days in the pursuit’s season. More than a million people were expected to attend." Rather poor journalism here. There was no explanation that the hunts were out to follow a scent trail, or just to meet up and ride out for a while. The conclusion that many class warriors on here seem to have reached is that the hunts were ignoring the law. Has anyone any evidence for this? Since even the hunt saboteurs can't be bothered to turn out nowadays, it seems unlikely. Whistlejacket
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Thu 27 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

baileyuk wrote:
here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...
So are you saying that the majority of the population are against fox hunting because of media hype? How patronising. I think the majority just don`t like the thought of animals being chased almost to death, then ripped to shreds by a pack of animals specially bred for the purpose. Then those same pack animals being disposed of when they are no longer young enough to keep up.
You can`t defend fox hunting, not with the defence of job losses or keeping vermin numbers down. No defence, it`s vile and belongs in the dark ages. If people like to see animals ripped to shreds in the name of a jolly day out then they have yet to evolve, in my opinion.
>
And @Whistlejacket - of course they ignore the law, hounds don`t know the law and the huntsmen couldn`t care less because they know the top cops & judges will be at the next Masons meeting with them.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...[/p][/quote]So are you saying that the majority of the population are against fox hunting because of media hype? How patronising. I think the majority just don`t like the thought of animals being chased almost to death, then ripped to shreds by a pack of animals specially bred for the purpose. Then those same pack animals being disposed of when they are no longer young enough to keep up. You can`t defend fox hunting, not with the defence of job losses or keeping vermin numbers down. No defence, it`s vile and belongs in the dark ages. If people like to see animals ripped to shreds in the name of a jolly day out then they have yet to evolve, in my opinion. > And @Whistlejacket - of course they ignore the law, hounds don`t know the law and the huntsmen couldn`t care less because they know the top cops & judges will be at the next Masons meeting with them. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Thu 27 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.
OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears.
.
Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans.
.
If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.[/p][/quote]If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.[/p][/quote]OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears. . Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans. . If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Thu 27 Dec 12

working class tory says...

bloodaxe wrote:
working class tory wrote:
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.
You're a victim of false-consciousness.
The only thing I am a victim of is thirteen years of middle-class left-wing intelligentsia telling me how I should wipe my a&$e and taxing me more because I work hard.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]working class tory[/bold] wrote: The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government. It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against. As usual they were chasing the popular vote.[/p][/quote]You're a victim of false-consciousness.[/p][/quote]The only thing I am a victim of is thirteen years of middle-class left-wing intelligentsia telling me how I should wipe my a&$e and taxing me more because I work hard. working class tory
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Sillybillies says...

Buzz Light-year says...
12:31pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.

This is quite true, see -

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/10128764
.Cycling___s____spir
itual_home____wants_
role_in_Tour_De_Fran
ce/

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/features/read
ersletters/10128859.
Tour_will_just_mean_
misery_for_drivers/

Previous articles/letters have led to some strong anti Tour de France in York comments, but that's called freedom of speech - TOUGH!
[quote]Buzz Light-year says... 12:31pm Thu 27 Dec 12 Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.[/quote] This is quite true, see - http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/10128764 .Cycling___s____spir itual_home____wants_ role_in_Tour_De_Fran ce/ http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/features/read ersletters/10128859. Tour_will_just_mean_ misery_for_drivers/ Previous articles/letters have led to some strong anti Tour de France in York comments, but that's called freedom of speech - TOUGH! Sillybillies
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Thu 27 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

GoodDoc wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.
OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears.
.
Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans.
.
If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.
I'm a staunch vegan, so are you admitting that my stance on hunting is based on fact?
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.[/p][/quote]If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.[/p][/quote]OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears. . Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans. . If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.[/p][/quote]I'm a staunch vegan, so are you admitting that my stance on hunting is based on fact? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Thu 27 Dec 12

R'Marcus says...

These toffs are mindless morons!
These toffs are mindless morons! R'Marcus
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Thu 27 Dec 12

RooBeck says...

The legislators(parliame
ntary draftsmen) screwed-up on the wording and intent of this Act and have caused great ambiguity with it's many interprettations and legal pitfalls. It should be made far clearer and if the public view is to continue the ban on hunting with dogs(which appears to be the case, as conceded by the SoState, Owen Paterson), then, this should mean all forms/methods and close the un-enforceable loopholes. Culling should be carried-out by a licensed Body, within a defined legislative framework and where the methods are scrutinised by animal welfare representatives. ie. Vets. Those wishing to dress-up in huntsmens' uniforms/continue rural 'traditions' and exercise their hunting horses/fox-hounds in the countryside in a pursuing manner, should follow the recommendations on drag-hunting and dog trails.
The legislators(parliame ntary draftsmen) screwed-up on the wording and intent of this Act and have caused great ambiguity with it's many interprettations and legal pitfalls. It should be made far clearer and if the public view is to continue the ban on hunting with dogs(which appears to be the case, as conceded by the SoState, Owen Paterson), then, this should mean all forms/methods and close the un-enforceable loopholes. Culling should be carried-out by a licensed Body, within a defined legislative framework and where the methods are scrutinised by animal welfare representatives. ie. Vets. Those wishing to dress-up in huntsmens' uniforms/continue rural 'traditions' and exercise their hunting horses/fox-hounds in the countryside in a pursuing manner, should follow the recommendations on drag-hunting and dog trails. RooBeck
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Thu 27 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

twotonethomas wrote:
GoodDoc wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.
If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.
OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears.
.
Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans.
.
If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.
I'm a staunch vegan, so are you admitting that my stance on hunting is based on fact?
Twotonethomas, I can indeed admit that your stance is based on fact. You're a vegan, and there's no way to deny that foxes are killed by humans in this way. If that's your gripe, fine. That is a consistent attitude, and no doubt you take issue with the killing of any creature, regardless of how cute is might be. Fair enough. I think you're the only logical anti-hunt argument on here. I have more problems with the hunting opponents that are more than happy to tuck into bacon sarnies, who support pest control of rats etc, yet whinge about huntsmen and make classist judgments. As soon as I read the word 'Toffs', it's clear that the offender has not a clue about the reality and has some kind of chip on their shoulder... ironic that one of the most sheltered, middle-class cities in the country can conjure up such class hatred.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.[/p][/quote]If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.[/p][/quote]OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears. . Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans. . If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.[/p][/quote]I'm a staunch vegan, so are you admitting that my stance on hunting is based on fact?[/p][/quote]Twotonethomas, I can indeed admit that your stance is based on fact. You're a vegan, and there's no way to deny that foxes are killed by humans in this way. If that's your gripe, fine. That is a consistent attitude, and no doubt you take issue with the killing of any creature, regardless of how cute is might be. Fair enough. I think you're the only logical anti-hunt argument on here. I have more problems with the hunting opponents that are more than happy to tuck into bacon sarnies, who support pest control of rats etc, yet whinge about huntsmen and make classist judgments. As soon as I read the word 'Toffs', it's clear that the offender has not a clue about the reality and has some kind of chip on their shoulder... ironic that one of the most sheltered, middle-class cities in the country can conjure up such class hatred. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Thu 27 Dec 12

expubcrawler says...

Bottom line is they are breaking the law.
End of!!
Bottom line is they are breaking the law. End of!! expubcrawler
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Thu 27 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

@ GoodDoc. I wouldn't say that I have a problem with the killing of any creature, I am not a follower of the jain religion and I accept that animals of any species, may have to be killed.

My arguments are with the reasons given for killing, they should be exceptionally good ones, and the methods used, they should be as quick and as painless as possible and done with the best intention.

I too find the toff class issue to be weak though as I said in an earlier post, it is as much the hunters who are guilty of this as the antis.
@ GoodDoc. I wouldn't say that I have a problem with the killing of any creature, I am not a follower of the jain religion and I accept that animals of any species, may have to be killed. My arguments are with the reasons given for killing, they should be exceptionally good ones, and the methods used, they should be as quick and as painless as possible and done with the best intention. I too find the toff class issue to be weak though as I said in an earlier post, it is as much the hunters who are guilty of this as the antis. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Thu 27 Dec 12

yorkshirelad says...

Absolutely 'expubcrawler'. Can you imagine what the foxhunters would say about teenagers looting shops in a riot?

People say that a certain class of people believe the law should only be enforced when it suits them...I'm afraid this clearly applies to the foxhunting issue.

There may well be debates about the methods of pest animal control. What isn't debatable is that in the UK our laws apply to everyone.
Absolutely 'expubcrawler'. Can you imagine what the foxhunters would say about teenagers looting shops in a riot? People say that a certain class of people believe the law should only be enforced when it suits them...I'm afraid this clearly applies to the foxhunting issue. There may well be debates about the methods of pest animal control. What isn't debatable is that in the UK our laws apply to everyone. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Thu 27 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

As regards reasons for killing the animal, unfortunately most opponents do not accept the reasons given by the only people that are affected and the only people that would know - farmers and huntsmen themselves. These people are largely ignored, and are told that they have some kind of primitive bloodlust, despite the reasons they give. If foxes weren't a pest, and did no perceivable damage to farmers, then hunters wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Similarly, if there was a feasible, humane way of killing foxes, the fox hunts would be less excusable. Sadly, many people that live in towns, barely ever setting foot in the countryside, are telling sheep and poultry farmers that foxes do no damage.
.
I don't believe hunters necessarily think the law is above them. Those I know simply believe that the law was passed as a populist move to appease city-dwelling voters. Where those that are affected (landowners etc) don't mind, the hunts continue in the belief that it doesn't impact on anyone else. I can't think of many laws that could be broken in the same way. People here are ever so vigiliant when it comes to hunters breaking the law, yet I wonder how many pipe up on threads involving speeding motorists or music downloads. Alas, most people pick and choose, including the rural community.
As regards reasons for killing the animal, unfortunately most opponents do not accept the reasons given by the only people that are affected and the only people that would know - farmers and huntsmen themselves. These people are largely ignored, and are told that they have some kind of primitive bloodlust, despite the reasons they give. If foxes weren't a pest, and did no perceivable damage to farmers, then hunters wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Similarly, if there was a feasible, humane way of killing foxes, the fox hunts would be less excusable. Sadly, many people that live in towns, barely ever setting foot in the countryside, are telling sheep and poultry farmers that foxes do no damage. . I don't believe hunters necessarily think the law is above them. Those I know simply believe that the law was passed as a populist move to appease city-dwelling voters. Where those that are affected (landowners etc) don't mind, the hunts continue in the belief that it doesn't impact on anyone else. I can't think of many laws that could be broken in the same way. People here are ever so vigiliant when it comes to hunters breaking the law, yet I wonder how many pipe up on threads involving speeding motorists or music downloads. Alas, most people pick and choose, including the rural community. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Mr Anderson says...

Pest control my @rse!
Pest control my @rse! Mr Anderson
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Theendoftheworld says...

What makes my blood boil is that the toffs just carry on with complete immunity from the law. Ok a couple got fined over Xmas but they'll have got that back from donations from their Tory backers.
Same as the bankers, they get fined for embezzling millions whilst benefit fraudsters (quite rightly) get jailed for falsely claiming thousands.
Can you imagine if the London rioters had been members of The Bullingdon Club? Do you think they would have faced prison? Fat chance.
We also have the inquiry about Andrew Mitchell which is being treated with 'great urgency' because he was a Tory minister. Compare that with the Hillingdon inquiry which took over 20 years because no toffs were involved. Or the case of the Yorkshire mines at Orgreave where, allegedly, police accounts were fabricated. Do you think it would have taken 30 years for a inquiry if a Tory Minister was involved? No, the problem is there's one law for the rich and one for everybody else.
Rant over - compliments of the season!
What makes my blood boil is that the toffs just carry on with complete immunity from the law. Ok a couple got fined over Xmas but they'll have got that back from donations from their Tory backers. Same as the bankers, they get fined for embezzling millions whilst benefit fraudsters (quite rightly) get jailed for falsely claiming thousands. Can you imagine if the London rioters had been members of The Bullingdon Club? Do you think they would have faced prison? Fat chance. We also have the inquiry about Andrew Mitchell which is being treated with 'great urgency' because he was a Tory minister. Compare that with the Hillingdon inquiry which took over 20 years because no toffs were involved. Or the case of the Yorkshire mines at Orgreave where, allegedly, police accounts were fabricated. Do you think it would have taken 30 years for a inquiry if a Tory Minister was involved? No, the problem is there's one law for the rich and one for everybody else. Rant over - compliments of the season! Theendoftheworld
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 27 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Thu 27 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.
In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.[/p][/quote]In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill. The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes. Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport? Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances. And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Thu 27 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

@GoodDoc. You say there is no feasible alternative to hunting, yet before the ban around 100,000 foxes were shot each year and 20,000 hunted. Can you please explain these figures if shooting is perceived by the rural community to be so cruel?

You also say that if foxes weren't a pest, hunters wouldn't have a leg to stand on. As hunts all over the countryside provide manmade earths to encourage foxes, they obviously don't have a leg to stand on.
@GoodDoc. You say there is no feasible alternative to hunting, yet before the ban around 100,000 foxes were shot each year and 20,000 hunted. Can you please explain these figures if shooting is perceived by the rural community to be so cruel? You also say that if foxes weren't a pest, hunters wouldn't have a leg to stand on. As hunts all over the countryside provide manmade earths to encourage foxes, they obviously don't have a leg to stand on. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Thu 27 Dec 12

piaggio1 says...

gooddoc! , thought i would,nt say this ,but yep i totally agree with your posts/reply.s,
there,s a first!
gooddoc! , thought i would,nt say this ,but yep i totally agree with your posts/reply.s, there,s a first! piaggio1
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

Why not set the dogs loose in a field full of lambs due to go to market? People in fancy dress could follow on horses, wash down the remains and send them to the butchers.

This gives the scum who enjoy seeing animals ripped apart their perverted thrills and nothing goes to waste. They can also claim it is more humane way of dispatching the sheep. No doubt they will also say the sheep enjoy being killed this way.
Why not set the dogs loose in a field full of lambs due to go to market? People in fancy dress could follow on horses, wash down the remains and send them to the butchers. This gives the scum who enjoy seeing animals ripped apart their perverted thrills and nothing goes to waste. They can also claim it is more humane way of dispatching the sheep. No doubt they will also say the sheep enjoy being killed this way. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

7:31am Fri 28 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

Theendoftheworld wrote:
What makes my blood boil is that the toffs just carry on with complete immunity from the law. Ok a couple got fined over Xmas but they'll have got that back from donations from their Tory backers.
Same as the bankers, they get fined for embezzling millions whilst benefit fraudsters (quite rightly) get jailed for falsely claiming thousands.
Can you imagine if the London rioters had been members of The Bullingdon Club? Do you think they would have faced prison? Fat chance.
We also have the inquiry about Andrew Mitchell which is being treated with 'great urgency' because he was a Tory minister. Compare that with the Hillingdon inquiry which took over 20 years because no toffs were involved. Or the case of the Yorkshire mines at Orgreave where, allegedly, police accounts were fabricated. Do you think it would have taken 30 years for a inquiry if a Tory Minister was involved? No, the problem is there's one law for the rich and one for everybody else.
Rant over - compliments of the season!
And Chris Hunne hasnt been to court yet for fixing his speeding fine? any takers for a shilling on the side Will he get off ? and why has it taken so long to get to court ? cos he is a toff thats why
[quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: What makes my blood boil is that the toffs just carry on with complete immunity from the law. Ok a couple got fined over Xmas but they'll have got that back from donations from their Tory backers. Same as the bankers, they get fined for embezzling millions whilst benefit fraudsters (quite rightly) get jailed for falsely claiming thousands. Can you imagine if the London rioters had been members of The Bullingdon Club? Do you think they would have faced prison? Fat chance. We also have the inquiry about Andrew Mitchell which is being treated with 'great urgency' because he was a Tory minister. Compare that with the Hillingdon inquiry which took over 20 years because no toffs were involved. Or the case of the Yorkshire mines at Orgreave where, allegedly, police accounts were fabricated. Do you think it would have taken 30 years for a inquiry if a Tory Minister was involved? No, the problem is there's one law for the rich and one for everybody else. Rant over - compliments of the season![/p][/quote]And Chris Hunne hasnt been to court yet for fixing his speeding fine? any takers for a shilling on the side Will he get off ? and why has it taken so long to get to court ? cos he is a toff thats why capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

8:59am Fri 28 Dec 12

Hoofarted says...

Barbarianism is an ugly spectacle. Those poor children photographed should be sympathized with and assessed by social workers as soon as.

Surely it would have been kinder leaving the kids in the pub alone, than taking them to watch grown people expressing mental erectness over animal abuse.
Barbarianism is an ugly spectacle. Those poor children photographed should be sympathized with and assessed by social workers as soon as. Surely it would have been kinder leaving the kids in the pub alone, than taking them to watch grown people expressing mental erectness over animal abuse. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

9:05am Fri 28 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

inthesticks wrote:
baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.
In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.
yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff?

the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us.


alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.[/p][/quote]In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill. The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes. Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport? Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances. And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.[/p][/quote]yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff? the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us. alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:38am Fri 28 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

baileyuk wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.
In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.
yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff?

the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us.


alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.
As a staunch vegan who keeps chickens can I just say that my chickens are out during the day, and locked in a fox proof shelter at night.

I won't pretend that we haven't lost a hen to the fox occasionally but I've lost far more to old age, and after all I introduced a non native species into an area where there were indigenous foxes.

Oh and the rats are kept down by the ready availability of feral farm cats in the area. But feral farm cats are another issue.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.[/p][/quote]In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill. The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes. Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport? Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances. And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.[/p][/quote]yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff? the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us. alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.[/p][/quote]As a staunch vegan who keeps chickens can I just say that my chickens are out during the day, and locked in a fox proof shelter at night. I won't pretend that we haven't lost a hen to the fox occasionally but I've lost far more to old age, and after all I introduced a non native species into an area where there were indigenous foxes. Oh and the rats are kept down by the ready availability of feral farm cats in the area. But feral farm cats are another issue. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

9:42am Fri 28 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

baileyuk wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.
In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.
yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff?

the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us.


alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.
baileyuk wrote:
some married friends of mine are involved in fox hunting, they live a small rented house and work for local farmers, both work 7 days a week and with a normal working day going beyond 12 hours, both on just above minimum wage


Good argument that demonstrates perfectly how this is not a 'Toff' activity.

Shows how people can be lacking in class and common decency regardless of their background. The inbred 'Toff' in the big house can be a cruel and callous as the commoner living on minimum wage.

Baileyuk has put together a very convincing illustration to prove his point. Well done sir.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.[/p][/quote]In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill. The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes. Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport? Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances. And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.[/p][/quote]yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff? the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us. alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.[/p][/quote]baileyuk wrote: some married friends of mine are involved in fox hunting, they live a small rented house and work for local farmers, both work 7 days a week and with a normal working day going beyond 12 hours, both on just above minimum wage Good argument that demonstrates perfectly how this is not a 'Toff' activity. Shows how people can be lacking in class and common decency regardless of their background. The inbred 'Toff' in the big house can be a cruel and callous as the commoner living on minimum wage. Baileyuk has put together a very convincing illustration to prove his point. Well done sir. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

10:35am Fri 28 Dec 12

MrChuckles says...

Thankfully it looks as though using simple facts and evidence will now be enough to convict law breaking huntsmen (regardless of how much it costs and by who the conviction is brought).
To keep the ban and hopefully close loopholes (can dream), simple stats and the majority opinion will progress any further condemning of this cruel and inhumane dispatch of wildlife into the past where this outdated "tradition" belongs!
76% of people support the ban on fox hunting and Paterson has admitted himself an MPs vote to repeal the Act would be lost.
Some people call it "anti-tradition" and a lack of undrstantding, ignorence is present in people against Fox Hunting. I grew up in the countryside and from a young age felt uncomfortable with this as both an act, a show and as an almost like ritual dismembering and dispatching of an animal. As much as I admire a blanced argument, if they are such a pest "vermin" just give the animal some respect and dispatch it like a rational person who lives in the modern day.
It's this "show of power" a man in control of the pack of hounds, dressing up and striding powerfully, basking in the admiration of the crowd (well... couple of 100 people who could be assed to turn up), that also furthers my lack of respect, utter disgust and pity for the people who have to carry out this outdated 18th century past-time.
I wouldn't call support against the "unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" ignorance.
I also think some wider press have been over-ambitious in trying to make it appear there is an notable amount of support for this. A modest saturday crowd at Elland Road for the football is around 15,000 and still doesn't come close to been classed as great (fair enough it's a very different event), but 10/10 in effort must go to the the pro-hunting press for gift wrapping a few 100 people as a near majority / challenging view (yup 76% are against it in the recent polls)!
When you really think about it, can a few 100 people (maybe 1,000 at most?), in a select number of towns (300?) in the entire UK... on just "one" day of the year be classed as great support and a considerable amount of people living in the past within the population of the UK?
Although you can not generalise, lets not forget the type of people who get a kick out of inflicting an animal to a rather cruel and inhumane dispatch. Lots of peaceful, anti-hunt and pro-Law men and woman of all ages go out to help enforce the law in places where it is reasonable to assume it's been totally ignored and some are subject to rather horrendous treatment. Here is one example...
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/cri
me/hunt-saboteur-bea
ten-by-gang-8432193.
html
Of course i'm sure a majority go to admire the killing of wildlife. These people go out and gather the evidence to convict these people, in the face of Judges that think the law should only apply to people who can afford it (See Judges comments about the RSPCA case) basically saying, if it costs too much, the law might not apply.
Then you have people who say... "well if your against fox hunting, why are you not against mice used for science and developing cancer cures?", this comment and argument is so stupid and arguments of this nature are not worth the time to explain why, Darwin had a theory against people of this stupidity.
So, with a very large majority against in the polls, an extra £1million in anti-hunt investment, recruiting ­investigators who are out in the field including many ex-police officers, and a quadrupled numbers of volunteers out in the field trying to catch those people hunting illegally (armed with just a video camera), it looks as though most people are starting to accept there is no place for animal cruelty in a civilised society, and (I never thought I would do this) to quote a labour MP "It’s like capital punishment, it’s gone, it’s never coming back. They need to accept this".
Thankfully it looks as though using simple facts and evidence will now be enough to convict law breaking huntsmen (regardless of how much it costs and by who the conviction is brought). To keep the ban and hopefully close loopholes (can dream), simple stats and the majority opinion will progress any further condemning of this cruel and inhumane dispatch of wildlife into the past where this outdated "tradition" belongs! 76% of people support the ban on fox hunting and Paterson has admitted himself an MPs vote to repeal the Act would be lost. Some people call it "anti-tradition" and a lack of undrstantding, ignorence is present in people against Fox Hunting. I grew up in the countryside and from a young age felt uncomfortable with this as both an act, a show and as an almost like ritual dismembering and dispatching of an animal. As much as I admire a blanced argument, if they are such a pest "vermin" just give the animal some respect and dispatch it like a rational person who lives in the modern day. It's this "show of power" a man in control of the pack of hounds, dressing up and striding powerfully, basking in the admiration of the crowd (well... couple of 100 people who could be assed to turn up), that also furthers my lack of respect, utter disgust and pity for the people who have to carry out this outdated 18th century past-time. I wouldn't call support against the "unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" ignorance. I also think some wider press have been over-ambitious in trying to make it appear there is an notable amount of support for this. A modest saturday crowd at Elland Road for the football is around 15,000 and still doesn't come close to been classed as great (fair enough it's a very different event), but 10/10 in effort must go to the the pro-hunting press for gift wrapping a few 100 people as a near majority / challenging view (yup 76% are against it in the recent polls)! When you really think about it, can a few 100 people (maybe 1,000 at most?), in a select number of towns (300?) in the entire UK... on just "one" day of the year be classed as great support and a considerable amount of people living in the past within the population of the UK? Although you can not generalise, lets not forget the type of people who get a kick out of inflicting an animal to a rather cruel and inhumane dispatch. Lots of peaceful, anti-hunt and pro-Law men and woman of all ages go out to help enforce the law in places where it is reasonable to assume it's been totally ignored and some are subject to rather horrendous treatment. Here is one example... http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/cri me/hunt-saboteur-bea ten-by-gang-8432193. html Of course i'm sure a majority go to admire the killing of wildlife. These people go out and gather the evidence to convict these people, in the face of Judges that think the law should only apply to people who can afford it (See Judges comments about the RSPCA case) basically saying, if it costs too much, the law might not apply. Then you have people who say... "well if your against fox hunting, why are you not against mice used for science and developing cancer cures?", this comment and argument is so stupid and arguments of this nature are not worth the time to explain why, Darwin had a theory against people of this stupidity. So, with a very large majority against in the polls, an extra £1million in anti-hunt investment, recruiting ­investigators who are out in the field including many ex-police officers, and a quadrupled numbers of volunteers out in the field trying to catch those people hunting illegally (armed with just a video camera), it looks as though most people are starting to accept there is no place for animal cruelty in a civilised society, and (I never thought I would do this) to quote a labour MP "It’s like capital punishment, it’s gone, it’s never coming back. They need to accept this". MrChuckles
  • Score: 0

10:47am Fri 28 Dec 12

MrChuckles says...

p.s "The mice and science argument" was one I noticed on good old Twitter not on here, it did make me Chuckle to such an extent I nearly spilt my tea all over my computer, I blame Foxes for this near disaster... (*grabs red coat and summons the hounds).
p.s "The mice and science argument" was one I noticed on good old Twitter not on here, it did make me Chuckle to such an extent I nearly spilt my tea all over my computer, I blame Foxes for this near disaster... (*grabs red coat and summons the hounds). MrChuckles
  • Score: 0

11:08am Fri 28 Dec 12

again says...

It's pleasing to note that the hunt supporting comments on here are in a definite minority and of poor quality.

Clearly fox-hunting is no longer a part of British culture, thank the good lord.

Let's keep it that way and hopefully the wannabe hunters will stop wasting police time and allow it to be spent on prosecuting others who get their kicks this way such as badger baiters.
It's pleasing to note that the hunt supporting comments on here are in a definite minority and of poor quality. Clearly fox-hunting is no longer a part of British culture, thank the good lord. Let's keep it that way and hopefully the wannabe hunters will stop wasting police time and allow it to be spent on prosecuting others who get their kicks this way such as badger baiters. again
  • Score: 0

11:59am Fri 28 Dec 12

Theendoftheworld says...

baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime. Theendoftheworld
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Fri 28 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.
yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.
[quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.[/p][/quote]yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Fri 28 Dec 12

MouseHouse says...

They are bnot breaking the law. They are not fox hunting, in theory at least. These people have the right to go for a horse ride if they so desire, they do not have the right to chase foxes.

Many years after the ban we can see the arguments put forward by the pro-hunting thugs were wroing. The horses are still bred and cared for, the packs of dogs are still bred and cared for...all things the thugs told us would stop should there be a ban.

I think there are bigger issues of social inequality to resolve than this, but if Cameron moves to repeal the ban then he should be aware of the reaction that will have. He is already out of his depth without fighting that lost battle.
They are bnot breaking the law. They are not fox hunting, in theory at least. These people have the right to go for a horse ride if they so desire, they do not have the right to chase foxes. Many years after the ban we can see the arguments put forward by the pro-hunting thugs were wroing. The horses are still bred and cared for, the packs of dogs are still bred and cared for...all things the thugs told us would stop should there be a ban. I think there are bigger issues of social inequality to resolve than this, but if Cameron moves to repeal the ban then he should be aware of the reaction that will have. He is already out of his depth without fighting that lost battle. MouseHouse
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting.
.
And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them.
.
I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.
Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting. . And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them. . I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.
Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Fri 28 Dec 12

gazzar says...

baileyuk wrote:
Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.
yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.
ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.[/p][/quote]yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.[/p][/quote]ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not gazzar
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Fri 28 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

GoodDoc, who does this cruel shooting of foxes, if not the rural community?

And why are the hunting set along with the countrycide alliance not calling for a ban on the shooting of foxes?

Also why does the law allow a farmer to shoot a pet dog that is worrying his sheep, but has never allowed the farmer to hunt the pet dog with a pack of hounds, even when hunting a live quarry was legal. Surely if hunting was so humane and shooting so cruel, the opposite would have applied.

And finally I don't know where you live but I have photographs of man made earths in 3 ryedale hunt countries. There are also false earths at one of the hunts around York. I found it whilst sabbing them last year.
GoodDoc, who does this cruel shooting of foxes, if not the rural community? And why are the hunting set along with the countrycide alliance not calling for a ban on the shooting of foxes? Also why does the law allow a farmer to shoot a pet dog that is worrying his sheep, but has never allowed the farmer to hunt the pet dog with a pack of hounds, even when hunting a live quarry was legal. Surely if hunting was so humane and shooting so cruel, the opposite would have applied. And finally I don't know where you live but I have photographs of man made earths in 3 ryedale hunt countries. There are also false earths at one of the hunts around York. I found it whilst sabbing them last year. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.
That's just your opinion. Which frankly ain't worth sh1t.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.[/p][/quote]That's just your opinion. Which frankly ain't worth sh1t. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting.
.
And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them.
.
I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.
" I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen........"

Lmfao! What a load of BS!
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting. . And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them. . I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.[/p][/quote]" I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen........" Lmfao! What a load of BS! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Fri 28 Dec 12

catty69 says...

Personally, i;d like to chase these blood-thristy toffs across fields, till they are tired and scared. Inflict disgusting injuries to them, and parade their dead bodies around! I hate hunting, i hate the hunters and i hate the people that support them!
Personally, i;d like to chase these blood-thristy toffs across fields, till they are tired and scared. Inflict disgusting injuries to them, and parade their dead bodies around! I hate hunting, i hate the hunters and i hate the people that support them! catty69
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.
Hmmm. And where exactly is my reference to shooting? Are you one of those inbreds with a large eye in the centre of your forehead having a challenge with focusing?
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.[/p][/quote]Hmmm. And where exactly is my reference to shooting? Are you one of those inbreds with a large eye in the centre of your forehead having a challenge with focusing? Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Fri 28 Dec 12

goatman says...

As somebody who's only lived in York for 21 years your prevailing politics of envy make me laugh. It's easy to sit on the barricades when the front line is over the horizon. Compared with BD and LS all you lot with a YO postcode are all toffs - you don't know how lucky you are!
As somebody who's only lived in York for 21 years your prevailing politics of envy make me laugh. It's easy to sit on the barricades when the front line is over the horizon. Compared with BD and LS all you lot with a YO postcode are all toffs - you don't know how lucky you are! goatman
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Fri 28 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

gazzar wrote:
baileyuk wrote:
Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.
yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.
ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not
did not say a friend paid for any upkeep! jumping to conclusions gazza,,but please dont cry! it could just possibly be that the horse belongs to someone who,s husband as died and the widow is too sentimental to sell the horse and so allows other people to use it? mmmmmmm enjoy your fancy dress!! why not nip down to lush and lend their foxes fancy dress that they have used the last few years..
[quote][p][bold]gazzar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.[/p][/quote]yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.[/p][/quote]ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not[/p][/quote]did not say a friend paid for any upkeep! jumping to conclusions gazza,,but please dont cry! it could just possibly be that the horse belongs to someone who,s husband as died and the widow is too sentimental to sell the horse and so allows other people to use it? mmmmmmm enjoy your fancy dress!! why not nip down to lush and lend their foxes fancy dress that they have used the last few years.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Fri 28 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

goatman wrote:
As somebody who's only lived in York for 21 years your prevailing politics of envy make me laugh. It's easy to sit on the barricades when the front line is over the horizon. Compared with BD and LS all you lot with a YO postcode are all toffs - you don't know how lucky you are!
I take it there's a lot of foxhunting in Bradford and Leeds then?
[quote][p][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: As somebody who's only lived in York for 21 years your prevailing politics of envy make me laugh. It's easy to sit on the barricades when the front line is over the horizon. Compared with BD and LS all you lot with a YO postcode are all toffs - you don't know how lucky you are![/p][/quote]I take it there's a lot of foxhunting in Bradford and Leeds then? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Ayemgee says...

Please add this to the headline.
Several million Yorkshire residents stay away!
Please add this to the headline. Several million Yorkshire residents stay away! Ayemgee
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Fri 28 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

I see elsewhere in The Press that N Yorkshire has, yet again, the worst record in the country for bird of prey persecution.

Just another example of those law abiding country folk ignoring the laws that they don't agree with.
I see elsewhere in The Press that N Yorkshire has, yet again, the worst record in the country for bird of prey persecution. Just another example of those law abiding country folk ignoring the laws that they don't agree with. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

twotonethomas wrote:
I see elsewhere in The Press that N Yorkshire has, yet again, the worst record in the country for bird of prey persecution.

Just another example of those law abiding country folk ignoring the laws that they don't agree with.
You're forgetting they only need to obey laws they agree with. Already been stated on here that it must be ok as the local plod don't arrest anyone. Nothing whatsoever to do with the local constable being the offspring of the squire and his sister.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: I see elsewhere in The Press that N Yorkshire has, yet again, the worst record in the country for bird of prey persecution. Just another example of those law abiding country folk ignoring the laws that they don't agree with.[/p][/quote]You're forgetting they only need to obey laws they agree with. Already been stated on here that it must be ok as the local plod don't arrest anyone. Nothing whatsoever to do with the local constable being the offspring of the squire and his sister. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Aieee, such a shame that once again the opponents here are characterized by insults, generic second-hand arguments and a failure to address any challenge levied at them. Toffs, inbreds, bloodlust, etc etc. Truly pathetic. Woody lad, if you can't engage with the argument on an adult level, stick to your World of Warcraft. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's if an obesessive forum troll wants to claim not to believe me. Sorry, but I'll focus on people with something coherent and interesting to say.
.
Twotonethomas, as I said, if there are hunts going on in areas where foxes are being encouraged to live, that is clearly wrong to me. People should not be encouraging a pest. I have heard of foxes being caught and relocated - but that isn't a relocation to provide prey for a hunt, and honestly that just moves a problem to a different area. Those that I know justify hunting at least partially through the fact that foxes are vermin and can be legally killed by snaring, trapping or shooting. Would you say those methods are more humane in practice? Honestly?
.
So yes the rural community do shoot foxes, which as I said in my view is more cruel (and I defy anyone who has seen both methods favour a shotgun). Still, I have yet to see anyone's better suggestion. I'm all ears. Obviously farmers wouldn't hunt stray dogs on horseback, that's a disingenuous comment. Clearly they don't all have a pack of hounds ready at their beck and call, whether or not it would actually be more cruel.
.
Yes Paul Meoff, I'm 'inbred'; what a concise and intellectual rebuttal of my argument. I've been put in my place. Well done kid. (!)
.
Personally, I have never hunted and never will - though I have followed several hunts. Unfortunately, I can't help feeling that most of the vehement anti-hunt sentiment is based on nonsense, and I've seen things that directly contradict arguments given here. Anyway, I think everyone should be open to safer, more humane alternatives... once the opponents have stopped chucking around hot-headed abuse.
Aieee, such a shame that once again the opponents here are characterized by insults, generic second-hand arguments and a failure to address any challenge levied at them. Toffs, inbreds, bloodlust, etc etc. Truly pathetic. Woody lad, if you can't engage with the argument on an adult level, stick to your World of Warcraft. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's if an obesessive forum troll wants to claim not to believe me. Sorry, but I'll focus on people with something coherent and interesting to say. . Twotonethomas, as I said, if there are hunts going on in areas where foxes are being encouraged to live, that is clearly wrong to me. People should not be encouraging a pest. I have heard of foxes being caught and relocated - but that isn't a relocation to provide prey for a hunt, and honestly that just moves a problem to a different area. Those that I know justify hunting at least partially through the fact that foxes are vermin and can be legally killed by snaring, trapping or shooting. Would you say those methods are more humane in practice? Honestly? . So yes the rural community do shoot foxes, which as I said in my view is more cruel (and I defy anyone who has seen both methods favour a shotgun). Still, I have yet to see anyone's better suggestion. I'm all ears. Obviously farmers wouldn't hunt stray dogs on horseback, that's a disingenuous comment. Clearly they don't all have a pack of hounds ready at their beck and call, whether or not it would actually be more cruel. . Yes Paul Meoff, I'm 'inbred'; what a concise and intellectual rebuttal of my argument. I've been put in my place. Well done kid. (!) . Personally, I have never hunted and never will - though I have followed several hunts. Unfortunately, I can't help feeling that most of the vehement anti-hunt sentiment is based on nonsense, and I've seen things that directly contradict arguments given here. Anyway, I think everyone should be open to safer, more humane alternatives... once the opponents have stopped chucking around hot-headed abuse. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Fri 28 Dec 12

gazzar says...

baileyuk wrote:
gazzar wrote:
baileyuk wrote:
Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.
yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.
ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not
did not say a friend paid for any upkeep! jumping to conclusions gazza,,but please dont cry! it could just possibly be that the horse belongs to someone who,s husband as died and the widow is too sentimental to sell the horse and so allows other people to use it? mmmmmmm enjoy your fancy dress!! why not nip down to lush and lend their foxes fancy dress that they have used the last few years..
i'm sorry if i offended you with regards to your friends sad loss, and yes i am sorry if perhaps i was jumping to conclusions. my post was more with regard to the 'lords of the manor' attitude more often than not displayed by members of the 'hunt', i'm sure other readers know what i mean. if people choose to spend good money partaking in this old fashioned form of 'entertainment' that is a choice they make, i certainly don't see the fun in it, but obviously someone does. it strikes me as more a social event than a realistic way of culling the fox, personaly i can't understand why landowners don't seek the help of 'serious' gunmen to help out? surely a quality shot from a high-calibre hunting rifle is quicker than messing about all day on horseback? then again theres no fun in that i suppose. as for parading through the market place, well i really don't understand that at all. once again i'm sorry that my original comment offended, have a good and peaceful new year.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazzar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.[/p][/quote]yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.[/p][/quote]ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not[/p][/quote]did not say a friend paid for any upkeep! jumping to conclusions gazza,,but please dont cry! it could just possibly be that the horse belongs to someone who,s husband as died and the widow is too sentimental to sell the horse and so allows other people to use it? mmmmmmm enjoy your fancy dress!! why not nip down to lush and lend their foxes fancy dress that they have used the last few years..[/p][/quote]i'm sorry if i offended you with regards to your friends sad loss, and yes i am sorry if perhaps i was jumping to conclusions. my post was more with regard to the 'lords of the manor' attitude more often than not displayed by members of the 'hunt', i'm sure other readers know what i mean. if people choose to spend good money partaking in this old fashioned form of 'entertainment' that is a choice they make, i certainly don't see the fun in it, but obviously someone does. it strikes me as more a social event than a realistic way of culling the fox, personaly i can't understand why landowners don't seek the help of 'serious' gunmen to help out? surely a quality shot from a high-calibre hunting rifle is quicker than messing about all day on horseback? then again theres no fun in that i suppose. as for parading through the market place, well i really don't understand that at all. once again i'm sorry that my original comment offended, have a good and peaceful new year. gazzar
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Mr Anderson says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
GoodDoc wrote:
Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting.
.
And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them.
.
I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.
" I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen........"

Lmfao! What a load of BS!
Spot on Woody! My thoughts exactly.
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting. . And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them. . I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.[/p][/quote]" I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen........" Lmfao! What a load of BS![/p][/quote]Spot on Woody! My thoughts exactly. Mr Anderson
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.
You're clearly too good for us on here sonny. I'm sure we all agree to bring back hunting with dogs now. I trust you would equally support bear baiting, dog fighting and **** fights within your highly questionable moral values.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.[/p][/quote]You're clearly too good for us on here sonny. I'm sure we all agree to bring back hunting with dogs now. I trust you would equally support bear baiting, dog fighting and **** fights within your highly questionable moral values. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Hoofarted says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.
You was with Greenpeace for 8 years as a teenager wanting to pretend you could change the world and then joined a Fox Hunt?

Why tell us your trendy childhood fads? Lots of spotty teenage kids rebel against the system and join groups associated with militancy. You clearly returned to your blood thirsty roots and supported what your parents and peers did.

No one claiming to be a militant teenager kicking back at his privileged background will convince me, chasing a fox for hours until it's heart explodes through fear and exhaustion is more humane than shooting one out right. Stick to saving whales in the name of trendydom. You haven't a clue.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.[/p][/quote]You was with Greenpeace for 8 years as a teenager wanting to pretend you could change the world and then joined a Fox Hunt? Why tell us your trendy childhood fads? Lots of spotty teenage kids rebel against the system and join groups associated with militancy. You clearly returned to your blood thirsty roots and supported what your parents and peers did. No one claiming to be a militant teenager kicking back at his privileged background will convince me, chasing a fox for hours until it's heart explodes through fear and exhaustion is more humane than shooting one out right. Stick to saving whales in the name of trendydom. You haven't a clue. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Fri 28 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

apologies accepted and no problems gazza,,

in respect to twotone and comment dogs chasing sheep, twotone is a fairly well educated fellow who through his own words understands the countryside ect however he also knows and hope will acknowledge the fact that the chances of a fox hunt or a farmer having a pack of hounds at the same time as a dog bothering his sheep would be more then a million to one and he is just using this off the top of head comment to fuel a fire..

as a back up to gooddoc, I am from a city where i used to see the urban fox nearly every day and yes the way the media portrayed fox hunting I was against it, i then moved away and after arguing with work colleaques attended a boxing day hunt at beverley,, it was this first hand experience that changed my mind and seeing damage that foxes do cause, the experience was completely different to those portrayed, which is why I ask that those who have no experience attend a hunt and see for themselves what happens, I fully understand that many will still be upset by hunting but at the very least their decision would have been made on fact and not outdated press media..
apologies accepted and no problems gazza,, in respect to twotone and comment dogs chasing sheep, twotone is a fairly well educated fellow who through his own words understands the countryside ect however he also knows and hope will acknowledge the fact that the chances of a fox hunt or a farmer having a pack of hounds at the same time as a dog bothering his sheep would be more then a million to one and he is just using this off the top of head comment to fuel a fire.. as a back up to gooddoc, I am from a city where i used to see the urban fox nearly every day and yes the way the media portrayed fox hunting I was against it, i then moved away and after arguing with work colleaques attended a boxing day hunt at beverley,, it was this first hand experience that changed my mind and seeing damage that foxes do cause, the experience was completely different to those portrayed, which is why I ask that those who have no experience attend a hunt and see for themselves what happens, I fully understand that many will still be upset by hunting but at the very least their decision would have been made on fact and not outdated press media.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Fri 28 Dec 12

countrylove says...

huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet. countrylove
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.
Got to hand it to GD, you don't pipe up very often but when you do at least you stay in character.
Perhaps if you weren't always such a condescending so and so, people would appreciate what you have to say a bit more. You might be right you might be wrong, who can see anything behind that giant attitude?

Been your stock in trade for years here.

"Poppet". Really?
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.[/p][/quote]Got to hand it to GD, you don't pipe up very often but when you do at least you stay in character. Perhaps if you weren't always such a condescending so and so, people would appreciate what you have to say a bit more. You might be right you might be wrong, who can see anything behind that giant attitude? Been your stock in trade for years here. "Poppet". Really? Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Fri 28 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.
Well it's taken a while to draw one of the illiterate terrier type out, but I can't wait to hear GoodDoc, baileyuk et al, chastising this goon for stereotyping the antis in some class war.

Oh, and for letting slip that the hunts are not only breaking the law but that the participants enjoy it.
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.[/p][/quote]Well it's taken a while to draw one of the illiterate terrier type out, but I can't wait to hear GoodDoc, baileyuk et al, chastising this goon for stereotyping the antis in some class war. Oh, and for letting slip that the hunts are not only breaking the law but that the participants enjoy it. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.
.
Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning.
.
Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear.
.
One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same. . Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning. . Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear. . One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Mr Anderson says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.
.
Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning.
.
Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear.
.
One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.
T1t. (Ahem)
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same. . Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning. . Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear. . One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.[/p][/quote]T1t. (Ahem) Mr Anderson
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

PS: Have to say that country love's comment is no more ludicrous than the continued references to bloodthirsty toffs. To me, it doesn't look like it was the pro-hunt comments on here that started with the generalisations. Plus it's no secret people enjoy hunting, no one is claiming that.
PS: Have to say that country love's comment is no more ludicrous than the continued references to bloodthirsty toffs. To me, it doesn't look like it was the pro-hunt comments on here that started with the generalisations. Plus it's no secret people enjoy hunting, no one is claiming that. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Fri 28 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Mr Anderson wrote:
GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.
.
Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning.
.
Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear.
.
One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.
T1t. (Ahem)
Superb, razor-sharp debating there. I love a challenge that really picks apart my reasoning. Good work.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same. . Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning. . Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear. . One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.[/p][/quote]T1t. (Ahem)[/p][/quote]Superb, razor-sharp debating there. I love a challenge that really picks apart my reasoning. Good work. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Fri 28 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.
Just to dispel your myth and make you look more of a t**t than you have made yourself look, - na, take that back, it`s not possible - I am working class, live in the countryside, work 13 hour shifts on my feet, used to have a horse when younger, have never hunted, hate people who kill and hurt animals, don`t have cuddly pets, don`t watch or like pet rescue, happen to think that if you domesticate an animal like a chicken and get wound up when a wild animal (i.e. fox) decides to take advantage of the dinner you have presented is just natural, and I certainly aren`t scum, and learnt at school to start a sentence with a capitol letter. (Hey, Christmas wouldn`t be Christmas without a working class snob like me!)
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.[/p][/quote]Just to dispel your myth and make you look more of a t**t than you have made yourself look, - na, take that back, it`s not possible - I am working class, live in the countryside, work 13 hour shifts on my feet, used to have a horse when younger, have never hunted, hate people who kill and hurt animals, don`t have cuddly pets, don`t watch or like pet rescue, happen to think that if you domesticate an animal like a chicken and get wound up when a wild animal (i.e. fox) decides to take advantage of the dinner you have presented is just natural, and I certainly aren`t scum, and learnt at school to start a sentence with a capitol letter. (Hey, Christmas wouldn`t be Christmas without a working class snob like me!) inthesticks
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.

Not criticising you for not piping up often. You can be as infrequent as you want.

Despite that infrequency, the attitude has always been obvious over the years, no-one is being quick to judge.

There's over the counter abuse and there's the other kind.


Anyway, carry on, lad.
I don't want to pop any bubbles or detract from the real people who are actually capable of debate, son.
Poppet. Sweetie. Etc.
[quote]GoodDoc wrote: Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.[/quote] Not criticising you for not piping up often. You can be as infrequent as you want. Despite that infrequency, the attitude has always been obvious over the years, no-one is being quick to judge. There's over the counter abuse and there's the other kind. Anyway, carry on, lad. I don't want to pop any bubbles or detract from the real people who are actually capable of debate, son. Poppet. Sweetie. Etc. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Fri 28 Dec 12

countrylove says...

inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police. countrylove
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.

Not criticising you for not piping up often. You can be as infrequent as you want.

Despite that infrequency, the attitude has always been obvious over the years, no-one is being quick to judge.

There's over the counter abuse and there's the other kind.


Anyway, carry on, lad.
I don't want to pop any bubbles or detract from the real people who are actually capable of debate, son.
Poppet. Sweetie. Etc.
Ha haa. Nice one Buzz!
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote]GoodDoc wrote: Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.[/quote] Not criticising you for not piping up often. You can be as infrequent as you want. Despite that infrequency, the attitude has always been obvious over the years, no-one is being quick to judge. There's over the counter abuse and there's the other kind. Anyway, carry on, lad. I don't want to pop any bubbles or detract from the real people who are actually capable of debate, son. Poppet. Sweetie. Etc.[/p][/quote]Ha haa. Nice one Buzz! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.
Perfectly legal to prance around in fancy dress in Malton just as it is to dress up for a hen or stag do in York. I don't think anyone is challenging that.

What common decency and the law of the land has rightly done is made it illegal to follow the fancy dress parade with killing animals. You're free to continue the Boxing Day dressing up games if that's what floats your boat.
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.[/p][/quote]Perfectly legal to prance around in fancy dress in Malton just as it is to dress up for a hen or stag do in York. I don't think anyone is challenging that. What common decency and the law of the land has rightly done is made it illegal to follow the fancy dress parade with killing animals. You're free to continue the Boxing Day dressing up games if that's what floats your boat. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

11:48pm Fri 28 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

countrylove wrote:
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.
Eh?

Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies?

Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.[/p][/quote]Eh? Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies? Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

12:09am Sat 29 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

twotonethomas wrote:
countrylove wrote:
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.
Eh?

Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies?

Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.
Methinks the school bus broke down a lot in Ryedale...
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.[/p][/quote]Eh? Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies? Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.[/p][/quote]Methinks the school bus broke down a lot in Ryedale... inthesticks
  • Score: 0

9:57am Sat 29 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

inthesticks wrote:
twotonethomas wrote:
countrylove wrote:
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.
Eh?

Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies?

Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.
Methinks the school bus broke down a lot in Ryedale...
That implies the poster is in the
education system. Highly unlikely.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.[/p][/quote]Eh? Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies? Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.[/p][/quote]Methinks the school bus broke down a lot in Ryedale...[/p][/quote]That implies the poster is in the education system. Highly unlikely. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

10:58am Sat 29 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

twotonethomas wrote:
countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.
Well it's taken a while to draw one of the illiterate terrier type out, but I can't wait to hear GoodDoc, baileyuk et al, chastising this goon for stereotyping the antis in some class war.

Oh, and for letting slip that the hunts are not only breaking the law but that the participants enjoy it.
read again twotone, where does he admit to breaking the law?

the only thing maybe wrong with the post is the word scum, but then maybe he is only replying to earlier posts where insults have been used..

the main bit he is right about is they are never going to stop.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.[/p][/quote]Well it's taken a while to draw one of the illiterate terrier type out, but I can't wait to hear GoodDoc, baileyuk et al, chastising this goon for stereotyping the antis in some class war. Oh, and for letting slip that the hunts are not only breaking the law but that the participants enjoy it.[/p][/quote]read again twotone, where does he admit to breaking the law? the only thing maybe wrong with the post is the word scum, but then maybe he is only replying to earlier posts where insults have been used.. the main bit he is right about is they are never going to stop. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

While I can't quite praise country love's turn of phrase, it certainly wasn't him / her who started with the insults. Right enough though bailey, countrylove never claims to be breaking the law. In fact even where foxes are still caught (and sorry to upset people, they are), it's hardly the fault of hunt followers. And funny that shortly after I'm criticised for a condescending attitude, antis post 3 or 4 messages suggesting this person is still in school! I couldn't make you folk less consistent if I wrote your lines myself! Talking of which, wasn't Paul Meoff recently advocating slaughtering travellers' horses? Such humanity.
While I can't quite praise country love's turn of phrase, it certainly wasn't him / her who started with the insults. Right enough though bailey, countrylove never claims to be breaking the law. In fact even where foxes are still caught (and sorry to upset people, they are), it's hardly the fault of hunt followers. And funny that shortly after I'm criticised for a condescending attitude, antis post 3 or 4 messages suggesting this person is still in school! I couldn't make you folk less consistent if I wrote your lines myself! Talking of which, wasn't Paul Meoff recently advocating slaughtering travellers' horses? Such humanity. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

I thought that he would have been posting a virtually unintelligible defence of last nights drunken rants bailey, or maybe he's still hungover.

You however may be able to explain the 'tradition' that 'they aint gonna stop' (sic).
I thought that he would have been posting a virtually unintelligible defence of last nights drunken rants bailey, or maybe he's still hungover. You however may be able to explain the 'tradition' that 'they aint gonna stop' (sic). twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc -

funny that shortly after I'm criticised for a condescending attitude, antis post 3 or 4 messages suggesting this person is still in school!

That's not condescending that's overtly insulting.
That's my point, don't be dissing others for abuse when you're also doing it, only in a more sly fashion.
Like I said, under the counter and over the counter.
Petal.

slaughtering travellers' horses? Such humanity.

Ah yes, your other specialist subject.
GoodDoc - [quote]funny that shortly after I'm criticised for a condescending attitude, antis post 3 or 4 messages suggesting this person is still in school![/quote] That's not condescending that's overtly insulting. That's my point, don't be dissing others for abuse when you're also doing it, only in a more sly fashion. Like I said, under the counter and over the counter. Petal. [quote]slaughtering travellers' horses? Such humanity.[/quote] Ah yes, your other specialist subject. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
don't be dissing others for abuse when you're also doing it, only in a more sly fashion.

My apologies GoodDoc, it's not my place to tell you what to do, you are free to do what you want.

I meant to say "...you are dissing others when you're also doing it..."
[quote]Buzz Light-year wrote: don't be dissing others for abuse when you're also doing it, only in a more sly fashion.[/quote] My apologies GoodDoc, it's not my place to tell you what to do, you are free to do what you want. I meant to say "...you are dissing others when you're also doing it..." Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Buzz, sweetpea, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I won't say that I'm flattering with my comments, but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t". Maybe that slipped by you. I'm pretty sure you realise that suggesting someone is still in school is condescending, as well as insulting. Maybe that one evaded your radar too.
.
And yes, I do often write in on articles to do with travellers. So what? As I said, I only wish other keyboard warriors, bored students and forum nerds would follow suit, and only pipe up on subjects they understand. Not pointing any fingers, like. There is sadly a minority of regular, compulsive commenters here who very rarely have anything directly relevant to say, yet continually fill threads with criticism of other posters and generally facetious and abusive banter. There are enough of them to encourage each other, as we can see. I can't work out your view on the article or hunting in general, but then again I'm not so sure you care. You seem to be happier commenting on comments than the news itself. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
Buzz, sweetpea, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I won't say that I'm flattering with my comments, but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t". Maybe that slipped by you. I'm pretty sure you realise that suggesting someone is still in school is condescending, as well as insulting. Maybe that one evaded your radar too. . And yes, I do often write in on articles to do with travellers. So what? As I said, I only wish other keyboard warriors, bored students and forum nerds would follow suit, and only pipe up on subjects they understand. Not pointing any fingers, like. There is sadly a minority of regular, compulsive commenters here who very rarely have anything directly relevant to say, yet continually fill threads with criticism of other posters and generally facetious and abusive banter. There are enough of them to encourage each other, as we can see. I can't work out your view on the article or hunting in general, but then again I'm not so sure you care. You seem to be happier commenting on comments than the news itself. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, sweetpea, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I won't say that I'm flattering with my comments, but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t". Maybe that slipped by you. I'm pretty sure you realise that suggesting someone is still in school is condescending, as well as insulting. Maybe that one evaded your radar too.
.
And yes, I do often write in on articles to do with travellers. So what? As I said, I only wish other keyboard warriors, bored students and forum nerds would follow suit, and only pipe up on subjects they understand. Not pointing any fingers, like. There is sadly a minority of regular, compulsive commenters here who very rarely have anything directly relevant to say, yet continually fill threads with criticism of other posters and generally facetious and abusive banter. There are enough of them to encourage each other, as we can see. I can't work out your view on the article or hunting in general, but then again I'm not so sure you care. You seem to be happier commenting on comments than the news itself. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
Nob.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Buzz, sweetpea, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I won't say that I'm flattering with my comments, but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t". Maybe that slipped by you. I'm pretty sure you realise that suggesting someone is still in school is condescending, as well as insulting. Maybe that one evaded your radar too. . And yes, I do often write in on articles to do with travellers. So what? As I said, I only wish other keyboard warriors, bored students and forum nerds would follow suit, and only pipe up on subjects they understand. Not pointing any fingers, like. There is sadly a minority of regular, compulsive commenters here who very rarely have anything directly relevant to say, yet continually fill threads with criticism of other posters and generally facetious and abusive banter. There are enough of them to encourage each other, as we can see. I can't work out your view on the article or hunting in general, but then again I'm not so sure you care. You seem to be happier commenting on comments than the news itself. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.[/p][/quote]Nob. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc wrote:
but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t".

For the third time: under the counter insults and over the counter insults.

So, you consider your insults better or more valid because they aren't so direct? It's ok to join in the insult fest as long as you're sly or clever about it?
Call everyone else out but do it yourself anyway?

That winning attitude of yours has won so many people over to your ideas down the years.
[quote]GoodDoc wrote: but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t".[/quote] For the third time: under the counter insults and over the counter insults. So, you consider your insults better or more valid because they aren't so direct? It's ok to join in the insult fest as long as you're sly or clever about it? Call everyone else out but do it yourself anyway? That winning attitude of yours has won so many people over to your ideas down the years. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Sat 29 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides... its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself.... baileyuk
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Buzz, for the second time, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I've not made one comment which is entirely abusive. I don't call that sly or clever, but perhaps you have a different understanding of those terms. But actually yes, I would consider it better or more valid if people were to address issues in a subtly derogatory way rather than barking playground abuse, with no reference to anyone's points.
.
My attitude is supposed to win people over? How sweet that you think that's what this is for. Sugarplum, I don't come here to make friends or to socialise as you do. I don't come here to form a weird bond with other anonymous commenters and garner some weird sense of belonging. I don't come here to get attention, nor even to try to rile people by saying ever-so naughty words (Woody). I'm here to share my views on things that I have some knowledge of. I suppose we use this facility very differently, you and I. If you commented on the news as much as you comment on people commenting, you might be vaguely more interesting.
Buzz, for the second time, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I've not made one comment which is entirely abusive. I don't call that sly or clever, but perhaps you have a different understanding of those terms. But actually yes, I would consider it better or more valid if people were to address issues in a subtly derogatory way rather than barking playground abuse, with no reference to anyone's points. . My attitude is supposed to win people over? How sweet that you think that's what this is for. Sugarplum, I don't come here to make friends or to socialise as you do. I don't come here to form a weird bond with other anonymous commenters and garner some weird sense of belonging. I don't come here to get attention, nor even to try to rile people by saying ever-so naughty words (Woody). I'm here to share my views on things that I have some knowledge of. I suppose we use this facility very differently, you and I. If you commented on the news as much as you comment on people commenting, you might be vaguely more interesting. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

baileyuk wrote:
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....
Nothing to do with fox hunting here. That's illegal. I thought the article was all about the fancy dress parade in Malton.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: 88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides... its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with fox hunting here. That's illegal. I thought the article was all about the fancy dress parade in Malton. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

baileyuk wrote:
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....
Couldn't agree more! Pathetic isn't it. People who are unable to form a reasoned opinion on the item itself, obsessing over the views of others.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: 88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides... its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more! Pathetic isn't it. People who are unable to form a reasoned opinion on the item itself, obsessing over the views of others. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Paul Meoff wrote:
baileyuk wrote:
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....
Nothing to do with fox hunting here. That's illegal. I thought the article was all about the fancy dress parade in Malton.
Hah if you only knew it would rock your little world!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Meoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: 88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides... its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with fox hunting here. That's illegal. I thought the article was all about the fancy dress parade in Malton.[/p][/quote]Hah if you only knew it would rock your little world! GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Sat 29 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

Paul if its all about dressing up why are you and others getting so angry about it?
Paul if its all about dressing up why are you and others getting so angry about it? baileyuk
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Sorry, but if bailey, GoodDoc and others want to get back to the issue then lets do it, I never left the issue untill some drunken or illiterate (or maybe both) idiot started spewing bile from the pro bloodsports side of the fence.

Fox hunting is illegal, get over it and obey the law. Better still go for repeal and let's get the loopholes closed. After all it took two further visits to the Badger Protection Act to close the loopholes that badger baiters used to escape justice.
Sorry, but if bailey, GoodDoc and others want to get back to the issue then lets do it, I never left the issue untill some drunken or illiterate (or maybe both) idiot started spewing bile from the pro bloodsports side of the fence. Fox hunting is illegal, get over it and obey the law. Better still go for repeal and let's get the loopholes closed. After all it took two further visits to the Badger Protection Act to close the loopholes that badger baiters used to escape justice. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Sat 29 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

whats the point twotone you just cant leave the insults out can you?

we are obeying the law as it stands if we are not you and your sabs are there to take the evidence and prosecute, was the latest one by RSPCA £750,000? oh and Mr May the outspoken animal lover who as rented the shooting rights of his estate to fatten his pocket? and you call the hunter toffs,, lets face it there are good and bad in both you speak of the anti hunt being assaulted, I can speak of sabs doing things like dropping iron ball bearings on the floor so that the horses will slip and the rider to get hurt.
whats the point twotone you just cant leave the insults out can you? we are obeying the law as it stands if we are not you and your sabs are there to take the evidence and prosecute, was the latest one by RSPCA £750,000? oh and Mr May the outspoken animal lover who as rented the shooting rights of his estate to fatten his pocket? and you call the hunter toffs,, lets face it there are good and bad in both you speak of the anti hunt being assaulted, I can speak of sabs doing things like dropping iron ball bearings on the floor so that the horses will slip and the rider to get hurt. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

bailey, please show me where I insulted anyone other than the drunk who came on here hurling abuse.

Where did you get the figure of £750k from? Did you just think of a number, which is how Boxing Day figures seem to be reached?

When was the last time a hunt sab was convicted of cruelty to a horse or hound? After all, your own logic says that you and your bloodsports enthusiasts are there to get evidence of such alleged behaviour by antis if it ever happened.

As for Brian May, even if the story were true, where does the stalking of deer equate to the chasing to death of an animal with a pack of dogs?
bailey, please show me where I insulted anyone other than the drunk who came on here hurling abuse. Where did you get the figure of £750k from? Did you just think of a number, which is how Boxing Day figures seem to be reached? When was the last time a hunt sab was convicted of cruelty to a horse or hound? After all, your own logic says that you and your bloodsports enthusiasts are there to get evidence of such alleged behaviour by antis if it ever happened. As for Brian May, even if the story were true, where does the stalking of deer equate to the chasing to death of an animal with a pack of dogs? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, for the second time, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I've not made one comment which is entirely abusive. I don't call that sly or clever, but perhaps you have a different understanding of those terms. But actually yes, I would consider it better or more valid if people were to address issues in a subtly derogatory way rather than barking playground abuse, with no reference to anyone's points. . My attitude is supposed to win people over? How sweet that you think that's what this is for. Sugarplum, I don't come here to make friends or to socialise as you do. I don't come here to form a weird bond with other anonymous commenters and garner some weird sense of belonging. I don't come here to get attention, nor even to try to rile people by saying ever-so naughty words (Woody). I'm here to share my views on things that I have some knowledge of. I suppose we use this facility very differently, you and I. If you commented on the news as much as you comment on people commenting, you might be vaguely more interesting.
GD, all the above claims you make explicitly and implicitly about me are wide of the mark and belong only in your head as anyone can see.

In case you hadn't noticed, no-one makes friends or socialises here, it's a hostile place. There is no "press community"
This place is what it is. It's about opinion. Sharing views, as you say.

So, if you're not trying to win people over then why are you even bothering to share your opinion here?
More importantly, when people disagree with you why do you put so much effort into countering? If you're not trying to win people over and all.

With that gigantic attitude of confrontational superiority, not many are going to care what you have to say anyway. They'll just get offended and throw low-brow insults at you. Sound familiar?


There's a deeper question here and I'm genuinely wondering and trying hard to avoid another barrage of derision and patronising sweet names.

What's the reason behind publicly expressing a view? Why do people come here and "have their say"?
To annoy people who disagree? To find out if others feel the same? To educate people who don't know better? To win dissenters over to a better way? To disseminate rare truths? Catharsis?


We do indeed use this facility differently, GD.
Something I'm thankful for.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Buzz, for the second time, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I've not made one comment which is entirely abusive. I don't call that sly or clever, but perhaps you have a different understanding of those terms. But actually yes, I would consider it better or more valid if people were to address issues in a subtly derogatory way rather than barking playground abuse, with no reference to anyone's points. . My attitude is supposed to win people over? How sweet that you think that's what this is for. Sugarplum, I don't come here to make friends or to socialise as you do. I don't come here to form a weird bond with other anonymous commenters and garner some weird sense of belonging. I don't come here to get attention, nor even to try to rile people by saying ever-so naughty words (Woody). I'm here to share my views on things that I have some knowledge of. I suppose we use this facility very differently, you and I. If you commented on the news as much as you comment on people commenting, you might be vaguely more interesting.[/p][/quote]GD, all the above claims you make explicitly and implicitly about me are wide of the mark and belong only in your head as anyone can see. In case you hadn't noticed, no-one makes friends or socialises here, it's a hostile place. There is no "press community" This place is what it is. It's about opinion. Sharing views, as you say. So, if you're not trying to win people over then why are you even bothering to share your opinion here? More importantly, when people disagree with you why do you put so much effort into countering? If you're not trying to win people over and all. With that gigantic attitude of confrontational superiority, not many are going to care what you have to say anyway. They'll just get offended and throw low-brow insults at you. Sound familiar? There's a deeper question here and I'm genuinely wondering and trying hard to avoid another barrage of derision and patronising sweet names. What's the reason behind publicly expressing a view? Why do people come here and "have their say"? To annoy people who disagree? To find out if others feel the same? To educate people who don't know better? To win dissenters over to a better way? To disseminate rare truths? Catharsis? We do indeed use this facility differently, GD. Something I'm thankful for. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Sat 29 Dec 12

countrylove says...

wasting ur time lads with these muppets they r just happy to get a reply each time. they wont change there mind they will never question what they r told or look into things themselves. let them think no foxes r killed any more, let them think the ban has reduced cruelty now more foxes are bein snared and shot! and let the country ppl do what we will always do. gona take more than a possy of ignorant towny sabs to change our habits! THEY need to get over it. til they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please. twotonnethomas ur just gonna have to cry about it or perhaps u and ur peta friends can send a few more poisonpen letters and parcel bombs. when was the last time a huntsman was convicted of arson or mailbombs?

oh and as for the other coments what does it proof? a brickie can change his name but not his spots!!!
wasting ur time lads with these muppets they r just happy to get a reply each time. they wont change there mind they will never question what they r told or look into things themselves. let them think no foxes r killed any more, let them think the ban has reduced cruelty now more foxes are bein snared and shot! and let the country ppl do what we will always do. gona take more than a possy of ignorant towny sabs to change our habits! THEY need to get over it. til they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please. twotonnethomas ur just gonna have to cry about it or perhaps u and ur peta friends can send a few more poisonpen letters and parcel bombs. when was the last time a huntsman was convicted of arson or mailbombs? oh and as for the other coments what does it proof? a brickie can change his name but not his spots!!! countrylove
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

I suppose that bailey will still claim that the drunk isn't admitting that hunts aren't still intentionally breaking the law.

You must have started on your allowance of shandy early today countryincest
I suppose that bailey will still claim that the drunk isn't admitting that hunts aren't still intentionally breaking the law. You must have started on your allowance of shandy early today countryincest twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Twotone, another odd reply for someone trying to convince bailey that you're not abusive. It's a shame you fail to address any of the points and continue with the whole 'you're a drunk' line. My reading of his/her comment was that factually, the law is unenforcable and foxes will continue to be killed in a range of ways; some more cruel than hunting. I don't think that's a surprising idea.
Twotone, another odd reply for someone trying to convince bailey that you're not abusive. It's a shame you fail to address any of the points and continue with the whole 'you're a drunk' line. My reading of his/her comment was that factually, the law is unenforcable and foxes will continue to be killed in a range of ways; some more cruel than hunting. I don't think that's a surprising idea. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Buzz, honeypie, as anyone can see? I beg to differ. I think it's patently obvious to anyone that uses these forums on a semi-regular basis that there *is* a 'Press Community' of sorts, and it does, as I said, comprise mainly of people such as yourself. Facetious comments irrelevant to the story, 'banter' you may call it, nit-picking, general abuse, grammar pedantry. I suspect you have a sense of place here. You're right, it's fairly hostile, except for a few folks such as yourself who relish all that and encourage one another; I can imagine the proud sense of validation you must feel when Woody or another chum agrees with you. I'm sure I, and many others, could name 5 or 6 regulars on here to whom this description would apply. It's nice you can feel some camaraderie with fellow cyberjokers, but really, it's not for me. I'll stick to articles where I have something to contribute. Call me crazy... or superior.

See I am more than happy to stand corrected by people with experience of the issue on the table. That's why I keep quiet on topics I know nothing about, and I have learned things from reading views on certain threads; again, I'd recommend you try it, if only you could just take a break from desperately trying to get a rise. I'm equally prepared in this instance to be corrected by someone who has followed a range of hunts and can inform me of things that I didn't already know. People denying my first-hand experience without having any of their own isn't going to show me anything.

I apologise that my reasonable amount of literacy and refusal to shout insults at people lead you to think I feel superior. I've not had that accusation before, so perhaps it's more something about your personal feelings. Fair enough. I can admit though that I feel superior to folk whose best line of attack is a string of insults.

The purpose of sharing views is generally to point out things that aren't mentioned in the article or misunderstandings, or simply to provide another point of view. In my case, I feel the need to speak on things that I have seen that directly contradict what people are saying. I'm never the first to comment, and only respond when someone posts something I know to be incorrect. Differing views on the truth is one thing; people purposefully misleading others is another. What is your reason for commenting? You clearly have no interest in the subject matter.

If putting effort into replying to people means I'm trying to win people over, you're just as guilty wouldn't you say? Anyway, once again you've managed an entire post without any reference to the article. Yes, we use it very differently; I took am thankful. I'd implore you to either find a chatroom to wile away the hours with Woody et al, making silly comments and picking up on each other's grammar, or start sharing views on the news articles featured.
Buzz, honeypie, as anyone can see? I beg to differ. I think it's patently obvious to anyone that uses these forums on a semi-regular basis that there *is* a 'Press Community' of sorts, and it does, as I said, comprise mainly of people such as yourself. Facetious comments irrelevant to the story, 'banter' you may call it, nit-picking, general abuse, grammar pedantry. I suspect you have a sense of place here. You're right, it's fairly hostile, except for a few folks such as yourself who relish all that and encourage one another; I can imagine the proud sense of validation you must feel when Woody or another chum agrees with you. I'm sure I, and many others, could name 5 or 6 regulars on here to whom this description would apply. It's nice you can feel some camaraderie with fellow cyberjokers, but really, it's not for me. I'll stick to articles where I have something to contribute. Call me crazy... or superior. See I am more than happy to stand corrected by people with experience of the issue on the table. That's why I keep quiet on topics I know nothing about, and I have learned things from reading views on certain threads; again, I'd recommend you try it, if only you could just take a break from desperately trying to get a rise. I'm equally prepared in this instance to be corrected by someone who has followed a range of hunts and can inform me of things that I didn't already know. People denying my first-hand experience without having any of their own isn't going to show me anything. I apologise that my reasonable amount of literacy and refusal to shout insults at people lead you to think I feel superior. I've not had that accusation before, so perhaps it's more something about your personal feelings. Fair enough. I can admit though that I feel superior to folk whose best line of attack is a string of insults. The purpose of sharing views is generally to point out things that aren't mentioned in the article or misunderstandings, or simply to provide another point of view. In my case, I feel the need to speak on things that I have seen that directly contradict what people are saying. I'm never the first to comment, and only respond when someone posts something I know to be incorrect. Differing views on the truth is one thing; people purposefully misleading others is another. What is your reason for commenting? You clearly have no interest in the subject matter. If putting effort into replying to people means I'm trying to win people over, you're just as guilty wouldn't you say? Anyway, once again you've managed an entire post without any reference to the article. Yes, we use it very differently; I took am thankful. I'd implore you to either find a chatroom to wile away the hours with Woody et al, making silly comments and picking up on each other's grammar, or start sharing views on the news articles featured. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Twotone, another odd reply for someone trying to convince bailey that you're not abusive. It's a shame you fail to address any of the points and continue with the whole 'you're a drunk' line. My reading of his/her comment was that factually, the law is unenforcable and foxes will continue to be killed in a range of ways; some more cruel than hunting. I don't think that's a surprising idea.
So you don't think he's drunk?

However, just to quote one of the few decipherable bits, 'till they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please.'

Are you trying to tell me, or anyone else trying to read the post, that that is not an admission, from someone who claims to attend hunts and so must know what they are talking about, that hunts are breaking the law?

Ask the Heythrop, the Fernie, the IOW etc whether the law is enforceable or not.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Twotone, another odd reply for someone trying to convince bailey that you're not abusive. It's a shame you fail to address any of the points and continue with the whole 'you're a drunk' line. My reading of his/her comment was that factually, the law is unenforcable and foxes will continue to be killed in a range of ways; some more cruel than hunting. I don't think that's a surprising idea.[/p][/quote]So you don't think he's drunk? However, just to quote one of the few decipherable bits, 'till they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please.' Are you trying to tell me, or anyone else trying to read the post, that that is not an admission, from someone who claims to attend hunts and so must know what they are talking about, that hunts are breaking the law? Ask the Heythrop, the Fernie, the IOW etc whether the law is enforceable or not. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Sat 29 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/dec/17
/david-cameron-hunt-
convicted-rspca


http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2238203/Badger-welfa
re-campaigner-Brian-
May-accused-hypocris
y-allowing-hunter-ki
ll-23-deer-land.html



i do admit to having given the wrong costing quite a bit out and i apologise, however £367000 is hell of a lot of money to get a conviction.. seems like the deepest pocket wins syndrome..(even the judge as made commments on the costings of bringing this case to court)


twotone as assumed that because he doesnt like what someone as posted or the grammar may not be spot on ect that they are either drunk or illiterate.

and if you seriously think RSPCA are against animal cruelty then think again,
http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2012/dec/17 /david-cameron-hunt- convicted-rspca http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2238203/Badger-welfa re-campaigner-Brian- May-accused-hypocris y-allowing-hunter-ki ll-23-deer-land.html i do admit to having given the wrong costing quite a bit out and i apologise, however £367000 is hell of a lot of money to get a conviction.. seems like the deepest pocket wins syndrome..(even the judge as made commments on the costings of bringing this case to court) twotone as assumed that because he doesnt like what someone as posted or the grammar may not be spot on ect that they are either drunk or illiterate. and if you seriously think RSPCA are against animal cruelty then think again, baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

I don't think he's drunk, and actually I don't particularly care. I can get the gist of his argument without insulting the way he writes it.
.
I can tell you with complete honestly that there are hunts that break the law and countrylove knows this too. You must surely realise this, so without asking Heythrop, the Fernie and the IOW, can you tell me the law IS widely enforceable? If so, why do some hunts come back with foxes? If there's not the funding to patrol every hunt, it's not enforceable. And for a law that doesn't impact on others (unlike for example speeding laws which are far more often flouted), that was passed by an urban population restricting a rural minority, I have far greater sympathy for this kind of breach. And ultimately, as countrylove suggested, there's very little that any of us can do about it anyway.
I don't think he's drunk, and actually I don't particularly care. I can get the gist of his argument without insulting the way he writes it. . I can tell you with complete honestly that there are hunts that break the law and countrylove knows this too. You must surely realise this, so without asking Heythrop, the Fernie and the IOW, can you tell me the law IS widely enforceable? If so, why do some hunts come back with foxes? If there's not the funding to patrol every hunt, it's not enforceable. And for a law that doesn't impact on others (unlike for example speeding laws which are far more often flouted), that was passed by an urban population restricting a rural minority, I have far greater sympathy for this kind of breach. And ultimately, as countrylove suggested, there's very little that any of us can do about it anyway. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, honeypie, as anyone can see? I beg to differ. I think it's patently obvious to anyone that uses these forums on a semi-regular basis that there *is* a 'Press Community' of sorts, and it does, as I said, comprise mainly of people such as yourself. Facetious comments irrelevant to the story, 'banter' you may call it, nit-picking, general abuse, grammar pedantry. I suspect you have a sense of place here. You're right, it's fairly hostile, except for a few folks such as yourself who relish all that and encourage one another; I can imagine the proud sense of validation you must feel when Woody or another chum agrees with you. I'm sure I, and many others, could name 5 or 6 regulars on here to whom this description would apply. It's nice you can feel some camaraderie with fellow cyberjokers, but really, it's not for me. I'll stick to articles where I have something to contribute. Call me crazy... or superior. See I am more than happy to stand corrected by people with experience of the issue on the table. That's why I keep quiet on topics I know nothing about, and I have learned things from reading views on certain threads; again, I'd recommend you try it, if only you could just take a break from desperately trying to get a rise. I'm equally prepared in this instance to be corrected by someone who has followed a range of hunts and can inform me of things that I didn't already know. People denying my first-hand experience without having any of their own isn't going to show me anything. I apologise that my reasonable amount of literacy and refusal to shout insults at people lead you to think I feel superior. I've not had that accusation before, so perhaps it's more something about your personal feelings. Fair enough. I can admit though that I feel superior to folk whose best line of attack is a string of insults. The purpose of sharing views is generally to point out things that aren't mentioned in the article or misunderstandings, or simply to provide another point of view. In my case, I feel the need to speak on things that I have seen that directly contradict what people are saying. I'm never the first to comment, and only respond when someone posts something I know to be incorrect. Differing views on the truth is one thing; people purposefully misleading others is another. What is your reason for commenting? You clearly have no interest in the subject matter. If putting effort into replying to people means I'm trying to win people over, you're just as guilty wouldn't you say? Anyway, once again you've managed an entire post without any reference to the article. Yes, we use it very differently; I took am thankful. I'd implore you to either find a chatroom to wile away the hours with Woody et al, making silly comments and picking up on each other's grammar, or start sharing views on the news articles featured.
Wow GD.
That's a frank admission.

What I love about free speech is that the record stands for everyone to read and judge for themselves - genius or fool, friend or foe, nice guy or w4nker.

I don't need to ask you to keep on adding to the record, as long as I or anyone posts anything however small addressed to you, you will keep on coming back and proving it.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Buzz, honeypie, as anyone can see? I beg to differ. I think it's patently obvious to anyone that uses these forums on a semi-regular basis that there *is* a 'Press Community' of sorts, and it does, as I said, comprise mainly of people such as yourself. Facetious comments irrelevant to the story, 'banter' you may call it, nit-picking, general abuse, grammar pedantry. I suspect you have a sense of place here. You're right, it's fairly hostile, except for a few folks such as yourself who relish all that and encourage one another; I can imagine the proud sense of validation you must feel when Woody or another chum agrees with you. I'm sure I, and many others, could name 5 or 6 regulars on here to whom this description would apply. It's nice you can feel some camaraderie with fellow cyberjokers, but really, it's not for me. I'll stick to articles where I have something to contribute. Call me crazy... or superior. See I am more than happy to stand corrected by people with experience of the issue on the table. That's why I keep quiet on topics I know nothing about, and I have learned things from reading views on certain threads; again, I'd recommend you try it, if only you could just take a break from desperately trying to get a rise. I'm equally prepared in this instance to be corrected by someone who has followed a range of hunts and can inform me of things that I didn't already know. People denying my first-hand experience without having any of their own isn't going to show me anything. I apologise that my reasonable amount of literacy and refusal to shout insults at people lead you to think I feel superior. I've not had that accusation before, so perhaps it's more something about your personal feelings. Fair enough. I can admit though that I feel superior to folk whose best line of attack is a string of insults. The purpose of sharing views is generally to point out things that aren't mentioned in the article or misunderstandings, or simply to provide another point of view. In my case, I feel the need to speak on things that I have seen that directly contradict what people are saying. I'm never the first to comment, and only respond when someone posts something I know to be incorrect. Differing views on the truth is one thing; people purposefully misleading others is another. What is your reason for commenting? You clearly have no interest in the subject matter. If putting effort into replying to people means I'm trying to win people over, you're just as guilty wouldn't you say? Anyway, once again you've managed an entire post without any reference to the article. Yes, we use it very differently; I took am thankful. I'd implore you to either find a chatroom to wile away the hours with Woody et al, making silly comments and picking up on each other's grammar, or start sharing views on the news articles featured.[/p][/quote]Wow GD. That's a frank admission. What I love about free speech is that the record stands for everyone to read and judge for themselves - genius or fool, friend or foe, nice guy or w4nker. I don't need to ask you to keep on adding to the record, as long as I or anyone posts anything however small addressed to you, you will keep on coming back and proving it. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

I don't know if any of you bloodsports apologists are aware of the article that appeared in The Press re: North Yorkshire having the worst record on bird of prey persecution in the country.

But out of interest, is your stance, bailey, GD etc, that the law protecting birds of prey is unenforceable and so should be repealed?
I don't know if any of you bloodsports apologists are aware of the article that appeared in The Press re: North Yorkshire having the worst record on bird of prey persecution in the country. But out of interest, is your stance, bailey, GD etc, that the law protecting birds of prey is unenforceable and so should be repealed? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Sat 29 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Buzz, my love, indeed entire threads stand as testament to how you and I use this site. I'm fine with that. Finally, having once again proven that you really have nothing relevant to add, no opinion on the article, no experience to draw on, I suggest you move on from your fascination with the posters here and try another thread.
.
Twotone, I don't think it's as similar as you think. Most of the birds of prey affected are protected and endangered, are they not? If not all of them. When populations of foxes dwindle to the levels of marsh harriers and kestrels, you would have a very strong point and I'm sure far fewer people would hunt.
Buzz, my love, indeed entire threads stand as testament to how you and I use this site. I'm fine with that. Finally, having once again proven that you really have nothing relevant to add, no opinion on the article, no experience to draw on, I suggest you move on from your fascination with the posters here and try another thread. . Twotone, I don't think it's as similar as you think. Most of the birds of prey affected are protected and endangered, are they not? If not all of them. When populations of foxes dwindle to the levels of marsh harriers and kestrels, you would have a very strong point and I'm sure far fewer people would hunt. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, my love, indeed entire threads stand as testament to how you and I use this site. I'm fine with that. Finally, having once again proven that you really have nothing relevant to add, no opinion on the article, no experience to draw on, I suggest you move on from your fascination with the posters here and try another thread.
.
Twotone, I don't think it's as similar as you think. Most of the birds of prey affected are protected and endangered, are they not? If not all of them. When populations of foxes dwindle to the levels of marsh harriers and kestrels, you would have a very strong point and I'm sure far fewer people would hunt.
You are without doubt the biggest self-righteous @rsehole that I have ever come across. And as I remember from previous reports on "hunts" in years gone by, you always have to have the last word. And a lengthy one at that.

Please prove me correct by replying to this post. Go on, you just can't resist can you.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Buzz, my love, indeed entire threads stand as testament to how you and I use this site. I'm fine with that. Finally, having once again proven that you really have nothing relevant to add, no opinion on the article, no experience to draw on, I suggest you move on from your fascination with the posters here and try another thread. . Twotone, I don't think it's as similar as you think. Most of the birds of prey affected are protected and endangered, are they not? If not all of them. When populations of foxes dwindle to the levels of marsh harriers and kestrels, you would have a very strong point and I'm sure far fewer people would hunt.[/p][/quote]You are without doubt the biggest self-righteous @rsehole that I have ever come across. And as I remember from previous reports on "hunts" in years gone by, you always have to have the last word. And a lengthy one at that. Please prove me correct by replying to this post. Go on, you just can't resist can you. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Sat 29 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Very clever gd, but I asked if, in your opinion the law should be repealed as it is unenforceable.

Can't you or won't you answer that question.?

At the moment I get the impression you would sooner have a spat with Buzz or Woody than debate the subject matter.
Very clever gd, but I asked if, in your opinion the law should be repealed as it is unenforceable. Can't you or won't you answer that question.? At the moment I get the impression you would sooner have a spat with Buzz or Woody than debate the subject matter. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

12:02am Sun 30 Dec 12

Paul Meoff says...

So the patronising doc and the semi literate country boy conclude that the law is unenforceable so it will continue to be broken. Says it all really. It's the morality of a 70s DJ or the Catholic clergy.
So the patronising doc and the semi literate country boy conclude that the law is unenforceable so it will continue to be broken. Says it all really. It's the morality of a 70s DJ or the Catholic clergy. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

1:47am Sun 30 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Huh don't people get rude with a few pints in them! It's a pity people can't exchange views here without descending to abuse. And is it fair to expect me to respond when people ask me direct questions? I think so.

So Twotone, no I don't believe the law should be repealed regarding birds of prey, because they are protected and endangered species. Really, I've never said all unenforceable laws should be repealed, and in fact I've never mentioned the hunting ban being repealed. I haven't said anything about badger baiting, and for the record I'm certainly not a 'blood sport enthusiast'. My main two points have been the same throughout; that the bloodthirsty toff argument is silly, and that hunting with dogs is often less cruel than the existing, legal alternatives... which no one appears to be bothered about. Neither point has been addressed, yet people have still found enough to get upset over. My patience is waning, I admit.
Huh don't people get rude with a few pints in them! It's a pity people can't exchange views here without descending to abuse. And is it fair to expect me to respond when people ask me direct questions? I think so. So Twotone, no I don't believe the law should be repealed regarding birds of prey, because they are protected and endangered species. Really, I've never said all unenforceable laws should be repealed, and in fact I've never mentioned the hunting ban being repealed. I haven't said anything about badger baiting, and for the record I'm certainly not a 'blood sport enthusiast'. My main two points have been the same throughout; that the bloodthirsty toff argument is silly, and that hunting with dogs is often less cruel than the existing, legal alternatives... which no one appears to be bothered about. Neither point has been addressed, yet people have still found enough to get upset over. My patience is waning, I admit. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

9:46am Sun 30 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

GoodDoc wrote:
Huh don't people get rude with a few pints in them! It's a pity people can't exchange views here without descending to abuse. And is it fair to expect me to respond when people ask me direct questions? I think so.

So Twotone, no I don't believe the law should be repealed regarding birds of prey, because they are protected and endangered species. Really, I've never said all unenforceable laws should be repealed, and in fact I've never mentioned the hunting ban being repealed. I haven't said anything about badger baiting, and for the record I'm certainly not a 'blood sport enthusiast'. My main two points have been the same throughout; that the bloodthirsty toff argument is silly, and that hunting with dogs is often less cruel than the existing, legal alternatives... which no one appears to be bothered about. Neither point has been addressed, yet people have still found enough to get upset over. My patience is waning, I admit.
Purple monkey dishwasher.
[quote][p][bold]GoodDoc[/bold] wrote: Huh don't people get rude with a few pints in them! It's a pity people can't exchange views here without descending to abuse. And is it fair to expect me to respond when people ask me direct questions? I think so. So Twotone, no I don't believe the law should be repealed regarding birds of prey, because they are protected and endangered species. Really, I've never said all unenforceable laws should be repealed, and in fact I've never mentioned the hunting ban being repealed. I haven't said anything about badger baiting, and for the record I'm certainly not a 'blood sport enthusiast'. My main two points have been the same throughout; that the bloodthirsty toff argument is silly, and that hunting with dogs is often less cruel than the existing, legal alternatives... which no one appears to be bothered about. Neither point has been addressed, yet people have still found enough to get upset over. My patience is waning, I admit.[/p][/quote]Purple monkey dishwasher. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:02am Sun 30 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Thank you gd, now we can take it from there.

I too have said that I disagree with the toff argument, as I said earlier, some of the worst people out in the hunting field are the terrier thugs and they are far more bloodthirsty than the field. In fact they don't care whether it's fox or human blood, and yes I am speaking from experience. I do however, as I have said before, believe the toff argument is given it's feet by the fact that the unelected Lords fought every attempt at a ban, and the millionaires in the tory party have vowed to overturn the ban, simply because this is their bloodsport.

As for the less cruel argument, this would be more believable IMO if hunting were done in the way it's proponents would like the general public to believe.
Cub hunting, now euphemistically called autumn hunting, where the new hounds are put into a wood which contains a family of young foxes and the wood is surrounded by riders to prevent the cubs escaping.
The blocking up of earths so that a fleeing fox can't escape and the use of terriers if the fox does find a refuge. Not only does the fox die after an underground dog fight, but the terriers also suffer greatly.
Artificial earths and the feeding of foxes to encourage them, you tell me which local hunts don't do it, and I'll see if I can prove you wrong.
The killing of people's pets, the hounds killed on roads and railways and the 1000's of hounds shot every year either because they aren't inclined to hunt, or they have reached 7-8 yrs of age.

And finally the very fact as I have mentioned before that for every fox killed by hounds before the ban, farmers, gamekeepers, shooting enthusiasts killed 5 with guns and more with snares. Yet there were never calls from the hunting fraternity to ban the shooting or snaring of foxes even though they seem to consider both those alternatives to be terribly cruel
Thank you gd, now we can take it from there. I too have said that I disagree with the toff argument, as I said earlier, some of the worst people out in the hunting field are the terrier thugs and they are far more bloodthirsty than the field. In fact they don't care whether it's fox or human blood, and yes I am speaking from experience. I do however, as I have said before, believe the toff argument is given it's feet by the fact that the unelected Lords fought every attempt at a ban, and the millionaires in the tory party have vowed to overturn the ban, simply because this is their bloodsport. As for the less cruel argument, this would be more believable IMO if hunting were done in the way it's proponents would like the general public to believe. Cub hunting, now euphemistically called autumn hunting, where the new hounds are put into a wood which contains a family of young foxes and the wood is surrounded by riders to prevent the cubs escaping. The blocking up of earths so that a fleeing fox can't escape and the use of terriers if the fox does find a refuge. Not only does the fox die after an underground dog fight, but the terriers also suffer greatly. Artificial earths and the feeding of foxes to encourage them, you tell me which local hunts don't do it, and I'll see if I can prove you wrong. The killing of people's pets, the hounds killed on roads and railways and the 1000's of hounds shot every year either because they aren't inclined to hunt, or they have reached 7-8 yrs of age. And finally the very fact as I have mentioned before that for every fox killed by hounds before the ban, farmers, gamekeepers, shooting enthusiasts killed 5 with guns and more with snares. Yet there were never calls from the hunting fraternity to ban the shooting or snaring of foxes even though they seem to consider both those alternatives to be terribly cruel twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

11:01am Sun 30 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

twotone you are strongly hinting that you have proof of what you say, so either
1) lets see the proof
2) pass it on to the reporter of this article and allow him to take the neccessary
3) pass it to the police, or RSPCA
twotone you are strongly hinting that you have proof of what you say, so either 1) lets see the proof 2) pass it on to the reporter of this article and allow him to take the neccessary 3) pass it to the police, or RSPCA baileyuk
  • Score: 0

11:22am Sun 30 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Sorry bailey I thought I was trying to have a sensible and informed debate with gd, but as you are back I will gladly attempt to have one with you.

What proof do you want me to take to the police or RSPCA?
I don't think that any of the things I listed were illegal pre-ban, other than the assaults on antis, so what good would going to the police have been?
Sorry bailey I thought I was trying to have a sensible and informed debate with gd, but as you are back I will gladly attempt to have one with you. What proof do you want me to take to the police or RSPCA? I don't think that any of the things I listed were illegal pre-ban, other than the assaults on antis, so what good would going to the police have been? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

11:35am Sun 30 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Twotone, at least there's someone here that can finally put across their thoughts without childish name-calling.
.
Glad we agree on the 'toffs'. Where I grew up (and had experiene of hunts), huntsmen were nearly entirely from working class farmers who would be considered further down the social scale to most York residents. That was why I can't see that argument regurgitated again; it is pure, sheltered ignorance.
.
Your argument of cruelty seems to be shifting towards cub hunting, and blocking of dens. Again, that's not what I can support and not what I have seen, despite my involvement. The hunts that I know do NOT do this, so while this possibly may be the norm in those that you have sabbed, take it from me that there are many hunts in the country that don't operate in that manner. I have also never heard of hounds being killed on the roads, or pets being caught by hounds. If you are saying that where this happens, it is wrong - fine, I agree. However, I suspect you're trying to suggest this happens everywhere because of a few isolated cases that activist groups have publicised. That is incorrect, and my experience tells me so. And I don't think hounds being euthanised can be a strong argument, when the antis are fundamentally trying to make all such dogs redundant and practically unhomeable.
.
You've also mentioned again how surprised you are that farmers don't complain about the cruelty of shooting. Really? They are not particularly concerned, especially when shooting is now pretty much their only legal way of controlling the population. Again I ask, what else would you have them do? Surely it should be the antis, who consider themselves bastions of animal protection, that should now be concerned. After-all, if cruelty is so important, then antis have an obligation to look at the alternatives that they are forcing on people. This hasn't happened and too many people are congratulating themselves thinking they've done foxes a favour!
.
I haven't followed any local hunts. The hunts I know about mainly Cattistock, Tedworth and Portman, down South, though I followed many others in Dorset and Somerset. I don't deny there are some badly run hunts. But certainly when I was involved, the hunts were popular, killed no pets(!), rarely used terriers (I've never seen them) run in areas with a fox problem, and were supported by working farmers. If you can acknowledge that such hunts exist, that would be a start. Maybe I'm exceptionally lucky to have seen uncharacteristically sound hunts; more likely though, is that the horror stories peddled by campaigners are not representative of the way most hunts are run.
Twotone, at least there's someone here that can finally put across their thoughts without childish name-calling. . Glad we agree on the 'toffs'. Where I grew up (and had experiene of hunts), huntsmen were nearly entirely from working class farmers who would be considered further down the social scale to most York residents. That was why I can't see that argument regurgitated again; it is pure, sheltered ignorance. . Your argument of cruelty seems to be shifting towards cub hunting, and blocking of dens. Again, that's not what I can support and not what I have seen, despite my involvement. The hunts that I know do NOT do this, so while this possibly may be the norm in those that you have sabbed, take it from me that there are many hunts in the country that don't operate in that manner. I have also never heard of hounds being killed on the roads, or pets being caught by hounds. If you are saying that where this happens, it is wrong - fine, I agree. However, I suspect you're trying to suggest this happens everywhere because of a few isolated cases that activist groups have publicised. That is incorrect, and my experience tells me so. And I don't think hounds being euthanised can be a strong argument, when the antis are fundamentally trying to make all such dogs redundant and practically unhomeable. . You've also mentioned again how surprised you are that farmers don't complain about the cruelty of shooting. Really? They are not particularly concerned, especially when shooting is now pretty much their only legal way of controlling the population. Again I ask, what else would you have them do? Surely it should be the antis, who consider themselves bastions of animal protection, that should now be concerned. After-all, if cruelty is so important, then antis have an obligation to look at the alternatives that they are forcing on people. This hasn't happened and too many people are congratulating themselves thinking they've done foxes a favour! . I haven't followed any local hunts. The hunts I know about mainly Cattistock, Tedworth and Portman, down South, though I followed many others in Dorset and Somerset. I don't deny there are some badly run hunts. But certainly when I was involved, the hunts were popular, killed no pets(!), rarely used terriers (I've never seen them) run in areas with a fox problem, and were supported by working farmers. If you can acknowledge that such hunts exist, that would be a start. Maybe I'm exceptionally lucky to have seen uncharacteristically sound hunts; more likely though, is that the horror stories peddled by campaigners are not representative of the way most hunts are run. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Sun 30 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Sorry bailey I thought I was trying to have a sensible and informed debate with gd, but as you are back I will gladly attempt to have one with you.

What proof do you want me to take to the police or RSPCA?
I don't think that any of the things I listed were illegal pre-ban, other than the assaults on antis, so what good would going to the police have been?
twotone your statement that you have this evidence and for us to try and ask which hunts don,t do it? but then go on to say the things listed were not illegal pre-ban.

So I presume you don,t have any evidence gathered since the ban which surely means the hunts are working within the law..
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: Sorry bailey I thought I was trying to have a sensible and informed debate with gd, but as you are back I will gladly attempt to have one with you. What proof do you want me to take to the police or RSPCA? I don't think that any of the things I listed were illegal pre-ban, other than the assaults on antis, so what good would going to the police have been?[/p][/quote]twotone your statement that you have this evidence and for us to try and ask which hunts don,t do it? but then go on to say the things listed were not illegal pre-ban. So I presume you don,t have any evidence gathered since the ban which surely means the hunts are working within the law.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Sun 30 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

gd.
First let me point out that my argument is with all aspects of hunting, and believe me, I have first hand experience of all aspects of fox hunting.

What I was pointing out was that fox hunting would not continue without the the cubbing, stopping up, terriermen, killing of hounds etc.
On top of that you have the 'accidents' ie killing of pets and livestock by hounds, hunt trespass and road and rail accidents. All of which bring the arrogant attitude of the hunts to public attention and aid the anti argument far more than most antis can.

Shooting may now be the only legal form of killing foxes, but you still fail to address why it was the most popular/effective way to kill foxes within the farming community, even when hunting was legal.

As for the hounds, if the hunts continued with genuine drag hunts (an artificial, not fox based scent) the hounds would still be needed though not in such large numbers. That would also mean far fewer than the 1000's killed annually at present would need to be killed. It was estimated pre-ban that the hunts killed almost as many hounds a year as foxes!!!

As for the 'horror stories peddled by campaigners'. Most of the horror stories I know of, were peddled by the press after been contacted by the public affected. Campaigners had nothing to do with them. And of course the stories we hear about are only the ones where the public does get in touch with the press.

A nice poll of MPs in today's Express shows a minority support for repeal :)
gd. First let me point out that my argument is with all aspects of hunting, and believe me, I have first hand experience of all aspects of fox hunting. What I was pointing out was that fox hunting would not continue without the the cubbing, stopping up, terriermen, killing of hounds etc. On top of that you have the 'accidents' ie killing of pets and livestock by hounds, hunt trespass and road and rail accidents. All of which bring the arrogant attitude of the hunts to public attention and aid the anti argument far more than most antis can. Shooting may now be the only legal form of killing foxes, but you still fail to address why it was the most popular/effective way to kill foxes within the farming community, even when hunting was legal. As for the hounds, if the hunts continued with genuine drag hunts (an artificial, not fox based scent) the hounds would still be needed though not in such large numbers. That would also mean far fewer than the 1000's killed annually at present would need to be killed. It was estimated pre-ban that the hunts killed almost as many hounds a year as foxes!!! As for the 'horror stories peddled by campaigners'. Most of the horror stories I know of, were peddled by the press after been contacted by the public affected. Campaigners had nothing to do with them. And of course the stories we hear about are only the ones where the public does get in touch with the press. A nice poll of MPs in today's Express shows a minority support for repeal :) twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Sun 30 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Sorry bailey, I was discussing with gd why hunting is cruel and why it was banned. The things I listed were legal pre-ban and are why the general public don't believe that chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion, having blocked up it's refuges so it cannot escape, and then ripping it to pieces with a pack of dogs is humane. It also explains why, if the fox does find a bolt hole, sending in terriers to fight with it whilst thugs with spades dig down to the two animals and then shoot the fox, if it's lucky, or release it for the hounds to continue chasing is also not considered humane by the general public.

As for evidence post ban, I don't have any personal evidence, but people have, and thankfully, prosecutions have happened.
Sorry bailey, I was discussing with gd why hunting is cruel and why it was banned. The things I listed were legal pre-ban and are why the general public don't believe that chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion, having blocked up it's refuges so it cannot escape, and then ripping it to pieces with a pack of dogs is humane. It also explains why, if the fox does find a bolt hole, sending in terriers to fight with it whilst thugs with spades dig down to the two animals and then shoot the fox, if it's lucky, or release it for the hounds to continue chasing is also not considered humane by the general public. As for evidence post ban, I don't have any personal evidence, but people have, and thankfully, prosecutions have happened. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Sun 30 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Sorry bailey, I was discussing with gd why hunting is cruel and why it was banned. The things I listed were legal pre-ban and are why the general public don't believe that chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion, having blocked up it's refuges so it cannot escape, and then ripping it to pieces with a pack of dogs is humane. It also explains why, if the fox does find a bolt hole, sending in terriers to fight with it whilst thugs with spades dig down to the two animals and then shoot the fox, if it's lucky, or release it for the hounds to continue chasing is also not considered humane by the general public.

As for evidence post ban, I don't have any personal evidence, but people have, and thankfully, prosecutions have happened.
Sorry bailey, I was discussing with gd why hunting is cruel and why it was banned. The things I listed were legal pre-ban and are why the general public don't believe that chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion, having blocked up it's refuges so it cannot escape, and then ripping it to pieces with a pack of dogs is humane. It also explains why, if the fox does find a bolt hole, sending in terriers to fight with it whilst thugs with spades dig down to the two animals and then shoot the fox, if it's lucky, or release it for the hounds to continue chasing is also not considered humane by the general public. As for evidence post ban, I don't have any personal evidence, but people have, and thankfully, prosecutions have happened. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Sun 30 Dec 12

Hoofarted says...

What's the point in attempting to find some peoples humane sides. There are thousands of sick people sat in prisons all over the world, that are adamant the life they took and the hurt they inflicted wasn't wrong.
What's the point in attempting to find some peoples humane sides. There are thousands of sick people sat in prisons all over the world, that are adamant the life they took and the hurt they inflicted wasn't wrong. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Sun 30 Dec 12

Coriolanus says...

Those in favour of hunting are belittled, insulted and shouted down; those against hunting don't appear to be able to stop it. That must be very frustrating for all concerned. The poison pen brigade are apparently weak, ineffectual and emasculated, and can do no more than rant. Despite years of abuse and legislation pandering to their wishes, hunting goes on and people support it Personally, I don't hunt, nor do I shoot for sport, because I value life. Equally, I would be ashamed to write vicious, vitriolic trash, attacking fellow human beings whose views happen to differ from my own.
Those in favour of hunting are belittled, insulted and shouted down; those against hunting don't appear to be able to stop it. That must be very frustrating for all concerned. The poison pen brigade are apparently weak, ineffectual and emasculated, and can do no more than rant. Despite years of abuse and legislation pandering to their wishes, hunting goes on and people support it Personally, I don't hunt, nor do I shoot for sport, because I value life. Equally, I would be ashamed to write vicious, vitriolic trash, attacking fellow human beings whose views happen to differ from my own. Coriolanus
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Sun 30 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Twotone; OK you have had experience of all aspects of hunting that you know of... in every part of the country? Or might you admit that your experience may not cover all possible eventualities, as I have admitted about mine. From what I've seen terriers are not often used - that seems to differ to your experience. A friend of mine who hunts told me that most riders don't want to hang around while terriers are called, and the aim is to catch the fox before it goes to ground. Make sense to me. It always appears that the leading criticisms of hunts apply only to certain cases, or additional add-ons to a hunt. You seem unhappy to accept that there are hunts that aren't run in the ways you describe. I can find 2 or 3 online mentions of pets being killed - not a particularly significant total in the scheme of things - and a similarly small number of rail accidents. It feels a little like clutching at straws as these are surely not pivotal reasons why anyone would oppose a hunt.
.
I don't want to appear confrontational, but now it seems to be you who is avoiding several questions. You seem to think shooting or snaring foxes is favourable and less cruel? If not, please tell us what you're recommending. After all, it's the supposed cruelty aspect that seems to be the driving force of the ban - not rail accidents or hound euthanasia.
.
Honestly, I don't believe you genuinely wonder why hunting wasn't the most popular way of killing foxes. As both Bailey and I have pointed out, it's pretty obvious to see how unfeasible it would be for every farmer to have immediate access to their very own pack of hounds and riders. Sadly, a shotgun is far easier, even if it is likely to be a more painful and slow end for the fox. For a group claiming to be so concerned with animal welfare, I wonder why antis don't seem to investigate the alternatives.

A lot of hunters, if not the majority, enjoy/ed it due to the unpredictable and exhilerating nature of the ride. In some areas people have found drag hunts a poor substitute - being restricted to where a quad bike can go - so yes, numbers of hounds have had to be reduced. I wonder who estimated that hunts killed as many hounds as foxes!... I can't help but feel you're using rather partisan sources. You also seem sure that campaigners have not had an input into bringing horror stories to the Press. I'm more cynical, I have to admit.

Again, I've not spoken about repeal, I'm not sure why you continually bring that up. The hunts that I've known are too rural for there to be any evident opposition or enforcement, so there isn't an appetite even among those huntsmen for a repeal. You seem happier arguing against things I've not even said!

Coriolanus, agreed. Certain posters have done their cause a huge disservice with vulgar name-calling and silly efforts to cause offense rather than address the challenges made.
Twotone; OK you have had experience of all aspects of hunting that you know of... in every part of the country? Or might you admit that your experience may not cover all possible eventualities, as I have admitted about mine. From what I've seen terriers are not often used - that seems to differ to your experience. A friend of mine who hunts told me that most riders don't want to hang around while terriers are called, and the aim is to catch the fox before it goes to ground. Make sense to me. It always appears that the leading criticisms of hunts apply only to certain cases, or additional add-ons to a hunt. You seem unhappy to accept that there are hunts that aren't run in the ways you describe. I can find 2 or 3 online mentions of pets being killed - not a particularly significant total in the scheme of things - and a similarly small number of rail accidents. It feels a little like clutching at straws as these are surely not pivotal reasons why anyone would oppose a hunt. . I don't want to appear confrontational, but now it seems to be you who is avoiding several questions. You seem to think shooting or snaring foxes is favourable and less cruel? If not, please tell us what you're recommending. After all, it's the supposed cruelty aspect that seems to be the driving force of the ban - not rail accidents or hound euthanasia. . Honestly, I don't believe you genuinely wonder why hunting wasn't the most popular way of killing foxes. As both Bailey and I have pointed out, it's pretty obvious to see how unfeasible it would be for every farmer to have immediate access to their very own pack of hounds and riders. Sadly, a shotgun is far easier, even if it is likely to be a more painful and slow end for the fox. For a group claiming to be so concerned with animal welfare, I wonder why antis don't seem to investigate the alternatives. A lot of hunters, if not the majority, enjoy/ed it due to the unpredictable and exhilerating nature of the ride. In some areas people have found drag hunts a poor substitute - being restricted to where a quad bike can go - so yes, numbers of hounds have had to be reduced. I wonder who estimated that hunts killed as many hounds as foxes!... I can't help but feel you're using rather partisan sources. You also seem sure that campaigners have not had an input into bringing horror stories to the Press. I'm more cynical, I have to admit. Again, I've not spoken about repeal, I'm not sure why you continually bring that up. The hunts that I've known are too rural for there to be any evident opposition or enforcement, so there isn't an appetite even among those huntsmen for a repeal. You seem happier arguing against things I've not even said! Coriolanus, agreed. Certain posters have done their cause a huge disservice with vulgar name-calling and silly efforts to cause offense rather than address the challenges made. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Sun 30 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

Gd I never once mentioned all areas of the country. The Press is a North Yorkshire paper and you are talking to someone who has lived all their life in N Yorkshire, so when a story is been reported about N Yorkshire hunts, which you admit to having no experience of and which I have spent over 20 years campaigning against, often out in the field, forgive me if I take no notice of your opinion of what goes on.
Of course most riders don't want to hang around whilst a fox is dug out, that's why most riders know nothing about terrier men. Sabs however will hang around and prevent dig outs. And of course hunts would sooner catch a fox above ground, which they attempt to guarantee by blocking up earths, something that you deny happens.

I did not say that pet/livestock attacks, trespass or road/rail accidents are reasons for opposing hunting, I said that such incidents and the arrogant attitude that follows such incidents aids the anti argument.

Snaring I would ban outright and I have never said anything to the contrary. Once again you ask for alternatives yet you ignore the answer I keep giving you, that shooting with the correct weapon and by skilled marksmen is the only humane way to kill a fox.

When you say that there is no appetite for repeal among the hunts, you show just how little you admit you know about hunting. Vote OK didn't send out foot soldiers at the last election and spend money trying to get pro repeal MPs elected just for the fun of it.
Gd I never once mentioned all areas of the country. The Press is a North Yorkshire paper and you are talking to someone who has lived all their life in N Yorkshire, so when a story is been reported about N Yorkshire hunts, which you admit to having no experience of and which I have spent over 20 years campaigning against, often out in the field, forgive me if I take no notice of your opinion of what goes on. Of course most riders don't want to hang around whilst a fox is dug out, that's why most riders know nothing about terrier men. Sabs however will hang around and prevent dig outs. And of course hunts would sooner catch a fox above ground, which they attempt to guarantee by blocking up earths, something that you deny happens. I did not say that pet/livestock attacks, trespass or road/rail accidents are reasons for opposing hunting, I said that such incidents and the arrogant attitude that follows such incidents aids the anti argument. Snaring I would ban outright and I have never said anything to the contrary. Once again you ask for alternatives yet you ignore the answer I keep giving you, that shooting with the correct weapon and by skilled marksmen is the only humane way to kill a fox. When you say that there is no appetite for repeal among the hunts, you show just how little you admit you know about hunting. Vote OK didn't send out foot soldiers at the last election and spend money trying to get pro repeal MPs elected just for the fun of it. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Sun 30 Dec 12

Hoofarted says...

Long, brown face, sharp pointed nose, pricked up ears,
Bright mischievous eyes, sharp white teeth,
Sleek, sinewy body,
Fleet feet,
And, most endearingly, bushy red-brown tail.

Almost, yet not quite a dog,
Almost a friend.

Craning his neck to reach the grapes.
Digging under the wire of the chicken coup.
Throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.

Almost, yet not quite a dog,
Almost a friend.
Always a twilight enigma.

Rummaging through suburban dustbins,
Flitting like a four-legged phantom through both penumbra and dark shadow.
Living the life of a vagabond:
A scavenger, not a mendicant,
A hungry survivor, not a fattened slave.

Then came the hounds, followed closely by men on horseback,
Black headed men in red coats who drove their charges fast and furious
Not sparing the whip,
Hell for leather across the farmland.

They ran the frightened animal to ground in an allotment garden,
And, delighting in its shrill cries of pain and terror,
Sat astride their mounts licking their lips in a vampiric bloodlust
As the dogs tore it limb from limb
In the name of sport.

Stop hunting: for fox sake!
Long, brown face, sharp pointed nose, pricked up ears, Bright mischievous eyes, sharp white teeth, Sleek, sinewy body, Fleet feet, And, most endearingly, bushy red-brown tail. Almost, yet not quite a dog, Almost a friend. Craning his neck to reach the grapes. Digging under the wire of the chicken coup. Throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. Almost, yet not quite a dog, Almost a friend. Always a twilight enigma. Rummaging through suburban dustbins, Flitting like a four-legged phantom through both penumbra and dark shadow. Living the life of a vagabond: A scavenger, not a mendicant, A hungry survivor, not a fattened slave. Then came the hounds, followed closely by men on horseback, Black headed men in red coats who drove their charges fast and furious Not sparing the whip, Hell for leather across the farmland. They ran the frightened animal to ground in an allotment garden, And, delighting in its shrill cries of pain and terror, Sat astride their mounts licking their lips in a vampiric bloodlust As the dogs tore it limb from limb In the name of sport. Stop hunting: for fox sake! Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Sun 30 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Yes, agreed Coriolanus.

Since it was pointed out, it now seems the gigantic attitude has backed off and a civilised discussion has broken out.
Yes, agreed Coriolanus. Since it was pointed out, it now seems the gigantic attitude has backed off and a civilised discussion has broken out. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Sun 30 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Twotone, we certainly disagree on a lot less then, if your issue is purely with local hunts. Odd, as in your previous comment you had mentioned being against all aspects of hunting. Perhaps you meant all aspects of hunting *in North Yorkshire*. Fair enough, I apologise, I had imagined you were thinking slightly bigger... I felt that this thread was a discussion about fox hunting in general, but never mind. I suppose 'taking no notice of my opinion' is one way to ensure your belief system is never challenged, and you never have to contemplate possibilities beyond your own experience. A-OK, nice to know where I stand.
.
Please read my last comment. Let me quote 'The hunts that *I've known* are too rural for there to be any evident opposition'. That's not all hunts, or all huntsmen - I'm making pains not to generalise and I haven't denied any of your experience with local hunts. I was merely making the point that actually, some huntsmen really aren't that bothered. Rail incidents etc 'aid the anti argument' and are worth you mentioning, but aren't 'reasons for opposing hunting'? Err OK.
.
Right here's the thing. I don't think you've mentioned _anywhere_ to me that you're recommending skilled marksmen. Feel free to correct me, have a skim. So not exactly an answer you 'keep giving me' - more like an answer I've had to prise out of you. I'm actually quite surprised that this is your best suggestion for a feasible solution; skilled marksmen in every farm, righty. You realise that the current most probable options that will fill the vacuum are snaring and shotguns. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. And it's all about getting rid of cruelty right?
.
Where have I denied that dens are blocked in some hunts? Again, you're putting words into my mouth.
.
Honestly, your best and most convincing argument is one that very few protesters can use; You're a vegan, and you don't wish any animal to die. I completely respect that, and it can't be argued against. The only way I can take the rest of your points seriously is if I remember what you've said: that you're *only* talking about your particular experience with local hunts and are not trying to generalise.
Twotone, we certainly disagree on a lot less then, if your issue is purely with local hunts. Odd, as in your previous comment you had mentioned being against all aspects of hunting. Perhaps you meant all aspects of hunting *in North Yorkshire*. Fair enough, I apologise, I had imagined you were thinking slightly bigger... I felt that this thread was a discussion about fox hunting in general, but never mind. I suppose 'taking no notice of my opinion' is one way to ensure your belief system is never challenged, and you never have to contemplate possibilities beyond your own experience. A-OK, nice to know where I stand. . Please read my last comment. Let me quote 'The hunts that *I've known* are too rural for there to be any evident opposition'. That's not all hunts, or all huntsmen - I'm making pains not to generalise and I haven't denied any of your experience with local hunts. I was merely making the point that actually, some huntsmen really aren't that bothered. Rail incidents etc 'aid the anti argument' and are worth you mentioning, but aren't 'reasons for opposing hunting'? Err OK. . Right here's the thing. I don't think you've mentioned _anywhere_ to me that you're recommending skilled marksmen. Feel free to correct me, have a skim. So not exactly an answer you 'keep giving me' - more like an answer I've had to prise out of you. I'm actually quite surprised that this is your best suggestion for a feasible solution; skilled marksmen in every farm, righty. You realise that the current most probable options that will fill the vacuum are snaring and shotguns. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. And it's all about getting rid of cruelty right? . Where have I denied that dens are blocked in some hunts? Again, you're putting words into my mouth. . Honestly, your best and most convincing argument is one that very few protesters can use; You're a vegan, and you don't wish any animal to die. I completely respect that, and it can't be argued against. The only way I can take the rest of your points seriously is if I remember what you've said: that you're *only* talking about your particular experience with local hunts and are not trying to generalise. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

8:20am Mon 31 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Gd I never once mentioned all areas of the country. The Press is a North Yorkshire paper and you are talking to someone who has lived all their life in N Yorkshire, so when a story is been reported about N Yorkshire hunts, which you admit to having no experience of and which I have spent over 20 years campaigning against, often out in the field, forgive me if I take no notice of your opinion of what goes on.
Of course most riders don't want to hang around whilst a fox is dug out, that's why most riders know nothing about terrier men. Sabs however will hang around and prevent dig outs. And of course hunts would sooner catch a fox above ground, which they attempt to guarantee by blocking up earths, something that you deny happens.

I did not say that pet/livestock attacks, trespass or road/rail accidents are reasons for opposing hunting, I said that such incidents and the arrogant attitude that follows such incidents aids the anti argument.

Snaring I would ban outright and I have never said anything to the contrary. Once again you ask for alternatives yet you ignore the answer I keep giving you, that shooting with the correct weapon and by skilled marksmen is the only humane way to kill a fox.

When you say that there is no appetite for repeal among the hunts, you show just how little you admit you know about hunting. Vote OK didn't send out foot soldiers at the last election and spend money trying to get pro repeal MPs elected just for the fun of it.
unlike GD I do have experience of local hunts but have not witnessed what you have?

the hunts have no control on who attends or who follows immediately after, if we did then sabs would not be allowed would they? one incident I know of the terrier men you speak of they had no association with any hunt and were from a certain area of york.

can i ask do you agree with a charitable organisation contracting one of the best,most expensive law firms to bring about a prosecution that maximum would be a fine, and spending over a quarter of a miilion pounds to do so..

as you suggest using the correct rifle and skilled marksmen to shoot a fox can you give me your estimate on how many skilled marksmen there are in the yorkshire region?
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: Gd I never once mentioned all areas of the country. The Press is a North Yorkshire paper and you are talking to someone who has lived all their life in N Yorkshire, so when a story is been reported about N Yorkshire hunts, which you admit to having no experience of and which I have spent over 20 years campaigning against, often out in the field, forgive me if I take no notice of your opinion of what goes on. Of course most riders don't want to hang around whilst a fox is dug out, that's why most riders know nothing about terrier men. Sabs however will hang around and prevent dig outs. And of course hunts would sooner catch a fox above ground, which they attempt to guarantee by blocking up earths, something that you deny happens. I did not say that pet/livestock attacks, trespass or road/rail accidents are reasons for opposing hunting, I said that such incidents and the arrogant attitude that follows such incidents aids the anti argument. Snaring I would ban outright and I have never said anything to the contrary. Once again you ask for alternatives yet you ignore the answer I keep giving you, that shooting with the correct weapon and by skilled marksmen is the only humane way to kill a fox. When you say that there is no appetite for repeal among the hunts, you show just how little you admit you know about hunting. Vote OK didn't send out foot soldiers at the last election and spend money trying to get pro repeal MPs elected just for the fun of it.[/p][/quote]unlike GD I do have experience of local hunts but have not witnessed what you have? the hunts have no control on who attends or who follows immediately after, if we did then sabs would not be allowed would they? one incident I know of the terrier men you speak of they had no association with any hunt and were from a certain area of york. can i ask do you agree with a charitable organisation contracting one of the best,most expensive law firms to bring about a prosecution that maximum would be a fine, and spending over a quarter of a miilion pounds to do so.. as you suggest using the correct rifle and skilled marksmen to shoot a fox can you give me your estimate on how many skilled marksmen there are in the yorkshire region? baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:38am Mon 31 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

I honestly don`t think the postings here are `vicious`. I`ve seen worse arguments on soaps before the watershed! I have heard people in public places say far worse insults than I have read online.
People will get passionate about their views and I say that`s a good thing. People are far too easily offended, toughen up. And if you can`t take a bit of hassle from someone with an opposing view or people arguing on here upsets you then really you should consider not reading the comments on a public forum.
It was I that made the comment about the school bus breaking down a lot (which was partially a joke) (and wasn`t saying someone was still in school but that they maybe never got there much!) because if a person is not intelligent enough to put words together properly then I struggle to take their point of view on board if I`m honest. Of course I will listen to everyone`s point, but really, being accused of sending bombs because you stand up against people who enjoy seeing animals ripped apart really is the mark of a very uneducated idiot or, as was pointed out by another poster, - someone who is drunk.
There are two facts here that matter. The first is that it is wrong to slaughter animals for fun. There can be no argument for it at all. Even the argument that is always cited by the farmers and hunt followers that foxes are vermin is weak. Farmers lose more livestock in transporting animals to slaughter than they do by foxes. And every year I see sheep wandering about on the roads near my home because the fences aren`t kept in good repair, farmers should maybe spend a bit more money on that important issue rather than 40 grand on a new 4x4.
Secondly a very high majority of the population wanted a ban on hunting, a total ban, not this half ban we have now which was put in place because the majority of our parliament is not working class. We all know class and money is an issue here. The majority of people who hunt have money, the majority of the population hate hunting. So we are left back where we started with hunting still going on because we have too many public school MP`s.
So if the RSCPA get evidence and can bring law breakers to court with money that animal lovers have donated, then good for them. At least it keeps the public informed that it is still going on if they didn`t know already.
I honestly don`t think the postings here are `vicious`. I`ve seen worse arguments on soaps before the watershed! I have heard people in public places say far worse insults than I have read online. People will get passionate about their views and I say that`s a good thing. People are far too easily offended, toughen up. And if you can`t take a bit of hassle from someone with an opposing view or people arguing on here upsets you then really you should consider not reading the comments on a public forum. It was I that made the comment about the school bus breaking down a lot (which was partially a joke) (and wasn`t saying someone was still in school but that they maybe never got there much!) because if a person is not intelligent enough to put words together properly then I struggle to take their point of view on board if I`m honest. Of course I will listen to everyone`s point, but really, being accused of sending bombs because you stand up against people who enjoy seeing animals ripped apart really is the mark of a very uneducated idiot or, as was pointed out by another poster, - someone who is drunk. There are two facts here that matter. The first is that it is wrong to slaughter animals for fun. There can be no argument for it at all. Even the argument that is always cited by the farmers and hunt followers that foxes are vermin is weak. Farmers lose more livestock in transporting animals to slaughter than they do by foxes. And every year I see sheep wandering about on the roads near my home because the fences aren`t kept in good repair, farmers should maybe spend a bit more money on that important issue rather than 40 grand on a new 4x4. Secondly a very high majority of the population wanted a ban on hunting, a total ban, not this half ban we have now which was put in place because the majority of our parliament is not working class. We all know class and money is an issue here. The majority of people who hunt have money, the majority of the population hate hunting. So we are left back where we started with hunting still going on because we have too many public school MP`s. So if the RSCPA get evidence and can bring law breakers to court with money that animal lovers have donated, then good for them. At least it keeps the public informed that it is still going on if they didn`t know already. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

10:27am Mon 31 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Inthesticks - people can handle a few pointed comments - 'under the counter' as one poster keeps mentioning. But when people write in with one or two word insults, rather than talking about the issue, it makes countrylove seem like Chaucer. An anti even went on to make a comparison between the 70s child abuse scandal and pro-huntsmen. That is pathetic and inexcusable - far worse than suggesting some animal rights protesters are criminals. If you're easily offended don't come here? Maybe. If you can't share an opinion without churning out vulgar playground abuse, don't come here.
.
Have to say, most of your points have been mentioned already. Certainly the one about class has, and I'm afraid even antis have realised this is nonsense, promoted by Labour to rile those with a class chip on their shoulder. I'm amazed people still dare to go back to that all the time.
.
Foxes aren't protected, and they are vermin. If you're arguing that foxes don't need to be killed, then it's not about hunting at all is?
.
Anyway, I think most views have already been aired, and most points made. We can keep retreading old ground for each thread necromancer but I'm not sure it'd be worth it.
Inthesticks - people can handle a few pointed comments - 'under the counter' as one poster keeps mentioning. But when people write in with one or two word insults, rather than talking about the issue, it makes countrylove seem like Chaucer. An anti even went on to make a comparison between the 70s child abuse scandal and pro-huntsmen. That is pathetic and inexcusable - far worse than suggesting some animal rights protesters are criminals. If you're easily offended don't come here? Maybe. If you can't share an opinion without churning out vulgar playground abuse, don't come here. . Have to say, most of your points have been mentioned already. Certainly the one about class has, and I'm afraid even antis have realised this is nonsense, promoted by Labour to rile those with a class chip on their shoulder. I'm amazed people still dare to go back to that all the time. . Foxes aren't protected, and they are vermin. If you're arguing that foxes don't need to be killed, then it's not about hunting at all is? . Anyway, I think most views have already been aired, and most points made. We can keep retreading old ground for each thread necromancer but I'm not sure it'd be worth it. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

11:34am Mon 31 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

in the sticks, the statment you make that you seem as a joke about school bus breaking down, means where I come from you are slow,mentally/physic
ally handicapped, special needs ect,so forgive me if I dont laugh! i,m just a blood thirsty scum bag with low intelligence.

as for bombs ask York uni about the animal rights alerts they get? or the spot at sand hutton when it was CSL..

as for sheep wandering the road can,t deny that as many sheep wander the roads Hutton le Hole ect,, It is well documented of gates being left open by country walkers who are not aware of good practice.

I wonder in comparison how many farm stock die of neglect compared to family pets?
in the sticks, the statment you make that you seem as a joke about school bus breaking down, means where I come from you are slow,mentally/physic ally handicapped, special needs ect,so forgive me if I dont laugh! i,m just a blood thirsty scum bag with low intelligence. as for bombs ask York uni about the animal rights alerts they get? or the spot at sand hutton when it was CSL.. as for sheep wandering the road can,t deny that as many sheep wander the roads Hutton le Hole ect,, It is well documented of gates being left open by country walkers who are not aware of good practice. I wonder in comparison how many farm stock die of neglect compared to family pets? baileyuk
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Mon 31 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

baileyuk wrote:
in the sticks, the statment you make that you seem as a joke about school bus breaking down, means where I come from you are slow,mentally/physic

ally handicapped, special needs ect,so forgive me if I dont laugh! i,m just a blood thirsty scum bag with low intelligence.

as for bombs ask York uni about the animal rights alerts they get? or the spot at sand hutton when it was CSL..

as for sheep wandering the road can,t deny that as many sheep wander the roads Hutton le Hole ect,, It is well documented of gates being left open by country walkers who are not aware of good practice.

I wonder in comparison how many farm stock die of neglect compared to family pets?
If you check back my comment included a quote from`countrylove` on Sat 29th. It was not aimed at you, nor did it mention people with special needs, you have added that. It was a reference to a person who doesn`t seem to have attended school very much, hence the problems with writing.
>
As for the quote - ` i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs`.
>
You can`t justify that comment and think it`s OK to call anyone who is anti hunting a bomber - your argument is becoming ridiculous.
>
And GD, you are one of those people who has made your mind up and you are so pompous in your imagined superiority, I`m really not surprised that people have become aggressive in their tone in previous posts. (I have to say I have no idea what a purple monkey dishwasher is but I wish the poster would come back and enlighten me).
It`s not what you are saying - it`s how you are saying it. - `I'm amazed people still dare to go back to that all the time` - Your amazed!! How I dare!! How patronising. Really, I do not agree with the one word name calling but I know from experience of life that if you spoke to people in the pub in the way you have so self righteously and smugly on here you would have not been upright within a very short time.
As for the poster who mentioned the abuse scandal, they were referring to a much bigger picture of the whole establishment, Freemasons (maybe you are one using terms like necromancer!), politicians, police cover ups, etc, which is a part of the dissatisfaction of ordinary people in this country and is gaining momentum. If you choose to believe that the whole lot isn`t linked then I rather pompously say that you are absolutely and totally wrong.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: in the sticks, the statment you make that you seem as a joke about school bus breaking down, means where I come from you are slow,mentally/physic ally handicapped, special needs ect,so forgive me if I dont laugh! i,m just a blood thirsty scum bag with low intelligence. as for bombs ask York uni about the animal rights alerts they get? or the spot at sand hutton when it was CSL.. as for sheep wandering the road can,t deny that as many sheep wander the roads Hutton le Hole ect,, It is well documented of gates being left open by country walkers who are not aware of good practice. I wonder in comparison how many farm stock die of neglect compared to family pets?[/p][/quote]If you check back my comment included a quote from`countrylove` on Sat 29th. It was not aimed at you, nor did it mention people with special needs, you have added that. It was a reference to a person who doesn`t seem to have attended school very much, hence the problems with writing. > As for the quote - ` i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs`. > You can`t justify that comment and think it`s OK to call anyone who is anti hunting a bomber - your argument is becoming ridiculous. > And GD, you are one of those people who has made your mind up and you are so pompous in your imagined superiority, I`m really not surprised that people have become aggressive in their tone in previous posts. (I have to say I have no idea what a purple monkey dishwasher is but I wish the poster would come back and enlighten me). It`s not what you are saying - it`s how you are saying it. - `I'm amazed people still dare to go back to that all the time` - Your amazed!! How I dare!! How patronising. Really, I do not agree with the one word name calling but I know from experience of life that if you spoke to people in the pub in the way you have so self righteously and smugly on here you would have not been upright within a very short time. As for the poster who mentioned the abuse scandal, they were referring to a much bigger picture of the whole establishment, Freemasons (maybe you are one using terms like necromancer!), politicians, police cover ups, etc, which is a part of the dissatisfaction of ordinary people in this country and is gaining momentum. If you choose to believe that the whole lot isn`t linked then I rather pompously say that you are absolutely and totally wrong. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Mon 31 Dec 12

Woody G Mellor says...

Fox hunting is illegal, it's banned, it's not needed, and its evil!

Happy New Year!
Fox hunting is illegal, it's banned, it's not needed, and its evil! Happy New Year! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Mon 31 Dec 12

Hoofarted says...

As i was driving yesterday evening, a fox crossed the road in front of me. I slowed down to let him cross and he stopped and gave my a wry glance. I nodded to him and off he went about his life.

Happy New Year! Don't let pointless barbarianism infect the real beauty of this wonderful world we all coexist in.
As i was driving yesterday evening, a fox crossed the road in front of me. I slowed down to let him cross and he stopped and gave my a wry glance. I nodded to him and off he went about his life. Happy New Year! Don't let pointless barbarianism infect the real beauty of this wonderful world we all coexist in. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Mon 31 Dec 12

baileyuk says...

wether the comment is aimed at me or not the fact is you have said something that you think is hilarious, that as different meanings to others.

the argument about bombs ect maybe ridiculous,however i know for a fact that establishments up and down the country receive credible threats on a regular basis.. I didnt call you a bomber but just pointing out the fact excists that those who seek protection for animals will threat and have no regard for human life.
wether the comment is aimed at me or not the fact is you have said something that you think is hilarious, that as different meanings to others. the argument about bombs ect maybe ridiculous,however i know for a fact that establishments up and down the country receive credible threats on a regular basis.. I didnt call you a bomber but just pointing out the fact excists that those who seek protection for animals will threat and have no regard for human life. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Mon 31 Dec 12

MrChuckles says...

countrylove wrote:
wasting ur time lads with these muppets they r just happy to get a reply each time. they wont change there mind they will never question what they r told or look into things themselves. let them think no foxes r killed any more, let them think the ban has reduced cruelty now more foxes are bein snared and shot! and let the country ppl do what we will always do. gona take more than a possy of ignorant towny sabs to change our habits! THEY need to get over it. til they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please. twotonnethomas ur just gonna have to cry about it or perhaps u and ur peta friends can send a few more poisonpen letters and parcel bombs. when was the last time a huntsman was convicted of arson or mailbombs?

oh and as for the other coments what does it proof? a brickie can change his name but not his spots!!!
@countrylove
Do you live so far in the country you never got to go to school? "U" Capital letters etc...
I have lived in the country all my life, Fox hunts have always made me feel uncomfortable and all I hear is the 18th century calling for their traditions back. Anyay, I have already put my opinion on here, will always stand by it. If you need to dismember animals with hounds, so be it, but I pity you.
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: wasting ur time lads with these muppets they r just happy to get a reply each time. they wont change there mind they will never question what they r told or look into things themselves. let them think no foxes r killed any more, let them think the ban has reduced cruelty now more foxes are bein snared and shot! and let the country ppl do what we will always do. gona take more than a possy of ignorant towny sabs to change our habits! THEY need to get over it. til they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please. twotonnethomas ur just gonna have to cry about it or perhaps u and ur peta friends can send a few more poisonpen letters and parcel bombs. when was the last time a huntsman was convicted of arson or mailbombs? oh and as for the other coments what does it proof? a brickie can change his name but not his spots!!![/p][/quote]@countrylove Do you live so far in the country you never got to go to school? "U" Capital letters etc... I have lived in the country all my life, Fox hunts have always made me feel uncomfortable and all I hear is the 18th century calling for their traditions back. Anyay, I have already put my opinion on here, will always stand by it. If you need to dismember animals with hounds, so be it, but I pity you. MrChuckles
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Mon 31 Dec 12

MrChuckles says...

*anyway (the "y") on my keyboard has about died. I might also add that I often speak to people who openly go fox hunting, and keep an open mind to opinions, yet I always come back to the same conclusions on the subject!
*anyway (the "y") on my keyboard has about died. I might also add that I often speak to people who openly go fox hunting, and keep an open mind to opinions, yet I always come back to the same conclusions on the subject! MrChuckles
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Mon 31 Dec 12

GoodDoc says...

Inthesticks, I'm truly bored of discussing the way I or other people comment. It's self-perpetuating bickering, a diversionary tactic, that has nothing at all to do with the issue at stake. Yes, I have made my mind up, based on experience. I believe you've done the same. Does that make you arrogant too? Even though people from both sides of the argument have said from their experience it isn't 'toffs' doing the hunting, you seem to declare otherwise. But that's not pompous is it? I could mention your quote 'I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic" - oh don't you?! Or your belief that your opinions are facts. Not at all superior. You also decided early on that Bailey is patronising too, yet neither of us have had that accusation from pro-hunts people or even those sitting on the fence. Just shows that actually, you don't like what we have to say, but it's easier to pick on how we say it. Bor-ing.
.
What was the point of your pub reference? I also happen to know pubs in which if you were to declare that all huntsmen are toffs, as you seem to think, you wouldn't be standing for long. What does that prove? Not a lot, other than the debate is polarised and some people argue with their fists. No news there then.
.
Earlier you mentioned how shooting a fox was quick and easy. Sorry but I sincerely doubt that you've seen a wild animal killed with a shotgun if you really think that a clean, one-shot kill is likely or even possible from a distance. I don't see protests about shotguns or snares, both legal and used more often than hunts... yet people still say the ban is about welfare?
.
I've checked 'Paul Meoffs' comment, and no he wasn't mentioning freemasonry or police cover-ups. He was simply comparing the morality of huntsmen (or even people ambivalent to hunting such as myself) to that of people involved in the systematic abuse of children. I find your attempt to defend that viewpoint utterly appalling, and makes countrylove's suggestion that some protesters send hate mail and parcel bombs seem *very* tame indeed. There is just so much hypocrisy here and the kind of digusting vitriol that Coriolanus mentioned.
.
OK, we're beginning to retread old ground. There is misinformation on both sides of the fence clearly, and sadly too few people will ever seek the answers themselves. There is too much childish abuse on here for people to be able to civilly exchange views...
.
Ultimately, the ban hasn't stopped fox hunting, won't stop hunting, and certainly hasn't reduced animal cruelty one jot. As we can see, whatever our opinions are, this rural pursuit and indeed this debate will continue like it or not. Now, I'm putting this to bed and am off to get an early start on festivities.

Happy New Year everyone!
Inthesticks, I'm truly bored of discussing the way I or other people comment. It's self-perpetuating bickering, a diversionary tactic, that has nothing at all to do with the issue at stake. Yes, I have made my mind up, based on experience. I believe you've done the same. Does that make you arrogant too? Even though people from both sides of the argument have said from their experience it isn't 'toffs' doing the hunting, you seem to declare otherwise. But that's not pompous is it? I could mention your quote 'I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic" - oh don't you?! Or your belief that your opinions are facts. Not at all superior. You also decided early on that Bailey is patronising too, yet neither of us have had that accusation from pro-hunts people or even those sitting on the fence. Just shows that actually, you don't like what we have to say, but it's easier to pick on how we say it. Bor-ing. . What was the point of your pub reference? I also happen to know pubs in which if you were to declare that all huntsmen are toffs, as you seem to think, you wouldn't be standing for long. What does that prove? Not a lot, other than the debate is polarised and some people argue with their fists. No news there then. . Earlier you mentioned how shooting a fox was quick and easy. Sorry but I sincerely doubt that you've seen a wild animal killed with a shotgun if you really think that a clean, one-shot kill is likely or even possible from a distance. I don't see protests about shotguns or snares, both legal and used more often than hunts... yet people still say the ban is about welfare? . I've checked 'Paul Meoffs' comment, and no he wasn't mentioning freemasonry or police cover-ups. He was simply comparing the morality of huntsmen (or even people ambivalent to hunting such as myself) to that of people involved in the systematic abuse of children. I find your attempt to defend that viewpoint utterly appalling, and makes countrylove's suggestion that some protesters send hate mail and parcel bombs seem *very* tame indeed. There is just so much hypocrisy here and the kind of digusting vitriol that Coriolanus mentioned. . OK, we're beginning to retread old ground. There is misinformation on both sides of the fence clearly, and sadly too few people will ever seek the answers themselves. There is too much childish abuse on here for people to be able to civilly exchange views... . Ultimately, the ban hasn't stopped fox hunting, won't stop hunting, and certainly hasn't reduced animal cruelty one jot. As we can see, whatever our opinions are, this rural pursuit and indeed this debate will continue like it or not. Now, I'm putting this to bed and am off to get an early start on festivities. Happy New Year everyone! GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Mon 31 Dec 12

Digeorge says...

The same sort of thread happened last year on York Press, that is why I declined to comment this year even though I am pro-Hunting!

Hunting saves a lot of people's jobs and live and let live.
The same sort of thread happened last year on York Press, that is why I declined to comment this year even though I am pro-Hunting! Hunting saves a lot of people's jobs and live and let live. Digeorge
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Mon 31 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

'Live and let live', obviously some sadists don't understand irony!
'Live and let live', obviously some sadists don't understand irony! twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Mon 31 Dec 12

countrylove says...

what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature.
lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!!
what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature. lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!! countrylove
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Mon 31 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

GD. Hope you enjoy your night.
>
> Sat 29th Buzz said " With that gigantic attitude of confrontational superiority, not many are going to care what you have to say anyway. They'll just get offended and throw low-brow insults at you. Sound familiar?"
>
It isn`t what you are saying at all, the subject matter, that has caused people to be aggressive towards you but THE WAY you say things - see there`s a difference. My point about the pub (but feel free to swap pub for supermarket car park, workplace, racemeeting, whatever - the point is you are extremely patronising, pompous and unpleasant in your manner. People would get annoyed with you whatever the subject matter if you speak to them in such a condescending way. Sorry if that bores you but it needs to be said and I realise now that it doesn`t matter how many people tell you that fact you will fail to see it.
Bailey was most definitely patronising to assume that people only get het up about hunting because of media hype. So that`s a fact that I wished to put right, as is my right on this forum, sorry if you don`t like that either. Bailey was patronising about one point, however you are patronising and superior with the way you make every point, huge difference. And there were only about 4 pro hunters on here - even though I think at one point you said you weren`t pro or anti? Don`t quote me on that, I`m not about to run through all these posts. So the fact that no pros have said it matters not a jot.
I didn`t say that shooting a fox with a gun was quick and easy either I said I see people shooting (and it`s usually for rabbits), at least it`s quick and the animal doesn`t get chased for miles and bitten numerous times. I find shooting and all other forms of killing wild animals disgusting but if people are going to do it at least don`t make it a jolly day out and relish the chase until the poor little animal is terrorised half to death first.
Maybe I read something into Paul`s comment that he didn`t mean at all, apologies to him if that`s the case. But my opinion, and I am entitled to it GD, even if you are offended or bored or whatever, is that there is a definite hierarchy in our country, those who have covered up and got away with a lot so far, I won`t go into the disgusting details on this forum but it involves the sectors I mentioned and more. My opinion GD, if you don`t like it just don`t comment.
GD. Hope you enjoy your night. > > Sat 29th Buzz said " With that gigantic attitude of confrontational superiority, not many are going to care what you have to say anyway. They'll just get offended and throw low-brow insults at you. Sound familiar?" > It isn`t what you are saying at all, the subject matter, that has caused people to be aggressive towards you but THE WAY you say things - see there`s a difference. My point about the pub (but feel free to swap pub for supermarket car park, workplace, racemeeting, whatever - the point is you are extremely patronising, pompous and unpleasant in your manner. People would get annoyed with you whatever the subject matter if you speak to them in such a condescending way. Sorry if that bores you but it needs to be said and I realise now that it doesn`t matter how many people tell you that fact you will fail to see it. Bailey was most definitely patronising to assume that people only get het up about hunting because of media hype. So that`s a fact that I wished to put right, as is my right on this forum, sorry if you don`t like that either. Bailey was patronising about one point, however you are patronising and superior with the way you make every point, huge difference. And there were only about 4 pro hunters on here - even though I think at one point you said you weren`t pro or anti? Don`t quote me on that, I`m not about to run through all these posts. So the fact that no pros have said it matters not a jot. I didn`t say that shooting a fox with a gun was quick and easy either I said I see people shooting (and it`s usually for rabbits), at least it`s quick and the animal doesn`t get chased for miles and bitten numerous times. I find shooting and all other forms of killing wild animals disgusting but if people are going to do it at least don`t make it a jolly day out and relish the chase until the poor little animal is terrorised half to death first. Maybe I read something into Paul`s comment that he didn`t mean at all, apologies to him if that`s the case. But my opinion, and I am entitled to it GD, even if you are offended or bored or whatever, is that there is a definite hierarchy in our country, those who have covered up and got away with a lot so far, I won`t go into the disgusting details on this forum but it involves the sectors I mentioned and more. My opinion GD, if you don`t like it just don`t comment. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Mon 31 Dec 12

twotonethomas says...

countrylove wrote:
what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature.
lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!!
It's every night around the same time, must be when the first half of shandy kicks in.
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature. lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!![/p][/quote]It's every night around the same time, must be when the first half of shandy kicks in. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

3:30am Tue 1 Jan 13

MrChuckles says...

countrylove wrote:
what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature.
lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!!
@countrylove Once again, all I can say is how amusing! I understand you don't care what I think, i'm merely a little comment on the great, York, Press website!
But what I will say is... (in the event you give a s*it).
"Townie"? 10/10 for effort, and possibly you are already in 1st place for comedy comment of 2013... were only 3 hours and 11minutes in.
Funnily enough (and to make you look a plonker) I have lived in the country all my life, how I come into that definition as a "townie" is beyond me!
Fox hunting has always struck me as sickening, wretched and vile (as have around 60% of the people who take part, I can't generalise I know, but that's just a simple opinion gained through a "degree in life" and observing the process back when I could stomach it more). How it can be justified, is nothing more than baffling!
One of the barrel scraping arguments put forward for pro-hunting sentiments, in a desperate attempt to keep this out-dated act relevant, is that "all these anti-hunt people, they just wont see it from the other side". Well, sadly for your sorry-selves, most do. For 25 years I have listened to the other side, sat down and had many a beer with the other side, tried to see this strange and inhumane "tradition" from that warped side, yet still, it's out-dated and needs to be put to rest. We live in a country where capital punishment in the has been dispatched to the depths of history, progressive and rational country we can be proud of, yet a very minute, minority try to cling onto some inhumane act that the majority no longer see relevant to the times were living in. A horse and hound killing is expected with some funny fancy dress and a pack of hounds chucked in to dismember a fox, then celebrate and parade it? Wake up people.
Then you also have some who say "it's sport"... come on, get real, if it's sport, one side has a rather good advantage on the "opposition".
Thankfully this dispatching of an intelligent animal with a pack of hounds is no longer justified! Warped minds on top of horses, on power trips will be no more! The fancy dress costumes can go back to the shop, (save some ££s on rental.. the economy is tough at the moment after all)!
What also makes me see your opinion as laughable is the way you see British law as nothing more than something that should be manipulated, laughed at and able to be cut and pasted, twisted to your own advantage, for your own thrills! If the boot was on the other foot, and you were subject to a law been broken, would you beleive the law should be disregarded and twisted so readily? Fair enough, the law isn't perfect, but respect and value shouldn't be questioned as a result! After all, other countries arn't so lucky to have a legal system that can support, defend and seperate right from wrong! But of course, you wouldn't consider that when you want to dictate from on top of your horse to your pack of hounds! About sums your character up. I guess you are also one of these who thinks the law and legal system should offer "value for money", therefore in the event a crime had been commited, but might not offer "value for money" it should be chucked out of court?
Happy hunting, I wish you all the best for the new year!
Once again, I quote the stats and averages from the polls accross the UK (not a few 100 people stood about on boxing day)... 76% of people support the ban on fox hunting! You can agree on this or not (simply to suit your own needs) yet Paterson has admitted himself an MPs vote to repeal the Act would be lost. Further to this, a few 100 people in a very select few towns (300 at most) accross the UK is extremely pathetic! Media made a good attempt at gift wrapping this, but it's simply hilarious.
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature. lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!![/p][/quote]@countrylove Once again, all I can say is how amusing! I understand you don't care what I think, i'm merely a little comment on the great, York, Press website! But what I will say is... (in the event you give a s*it). "Townie"? 10/10 for effort, and possibly you are already in 1st place for comedy comment of 2013... were only 3 hours and 11minutes in. Funnily enough (and to make you look a plonker) I have lived in the country all my life, how I come into that definition as a "townie" is beyond me! Fox hunting has always struck me as sickening, wretched and vile (as have around 60% of the people who take part, I can't generalise I know, but that's just a simple opinion gained through a "degree in life" and observing the process back when I could stomach it more). How it can be justified, is nothing more than baffling! One of the barrel scraping arguments put forward for pro-hunting sentiments, in a desperate attempt to keep this out-dated act relevant, is that "all these anti-hunt people, they just wont see it from the other side". Well, sadly for your sorry-selves, most do. For 25 years I have listened to the other side, sat down and had many a beer with the other side, tried to see this strange and inhumane "tradition" from that warped side, yet still, it's out-dated and needs to be put to rest. We live in a country where capital punishment in the has been dispatched to the depths of history, progressive and rational country we can be proud of, yet a very minute, minority try to cling onto some inhumane act that the majority no longer see relevant to the times were living in. A horse and hound killing is expected with some funny fancy dress and a pack of hounds chucked in to dismember a fox, then celebrate and parade it? Wake up people. Then you also have some who say "it's sport"... come on, get real, if it's sport, one side has a rather good advantage on the "opposition". Thankfully this dispatching of an intelligent animal with a pack of hounds is no longer justified! Warped minds on top of horses, on power trips will be no more! The fancy dress costumes can go back to the shop, (save some ££s on rental.. the economy is tough at the moment after all)! What also makes me see your opinion as laughable is the way you see British law as nothing more than something that should be manipulated, laughed at and able to be cut and pasted, twisted to your own advantage, for your own thrills! If the boot was on the other foot, and you were subject to a law been broken, would you beleive the law should be disregarded and twisted so readily? Fair enough, the law isn't perfect, but respect and value shouldn't be questioned as a result! After all, other countries arn't so lucky to have a legal system that can support, defend and seperate right from wrong! But of course, you wouldn't consider that when you want to dictate from on top of your horse to your pack of hounds! About sums your character up. I guess you are also one of these who thinks the law and legal system should offer "value for money", therefore in the event a crime had been commited, but might not offer "value for money" it should be chucked out of court? Happy hunting, I wish you all the best for the new year! Once again, I quote the stats and averages from the polls accross the UK (not a few 100 people stood about on boxing day)... 76% of people support the ban on fox hunting! You can agree on this or not (simply to suit your own needs) yet Paterson has admitted himself an MPs vote to repeal the Act would be lost. Further to this, a few 100 people in a very select few towns (300 at most) accross the UK is extremely pathetic! Media made a good attempt at gift wrapping this, but it's simply hilarious. MrChuckles
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Tue 1 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

(I have to say I have no idea what a purple monkey dishwasher is but I wish the poster would come back and enlighten me).


It's a Simpsons quote. It refers to Chinese whispers.

The reason I wrote it?
I realised it was pointless writing anything to engage GoodDoc as whatever I wrote would be turned around, twisted and changed in meaning, slathered in patronising attitude and topped off with a generous cherry of insults and false claims about me.
[quote](I have to say I have no idea what a purple monkey dishwasher is but I wish the poster would come back and enlighten me).[/quote] It's a Simpsons quote. It refers to Chinese whispers. The reason I wrote it? I realised it was pointless writing anything to engage GoodDoc as whatever I wrote would be turned around, twisted and changed in meaning, slathered in patronising attitude and topped off with a generous cherry of insults and false claims about me. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 1 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

so 300 at most most times 200 ==

if I remember correctly there were 400000 involved in a march in london prior to the ban, and if we went through this again i would bet this would double..

(awaiting uk population numbers now as a defence)

im not patronnising anyone just asking for them to make up their mind with real facts not what is media hype,, last year(2012) there was another stunt by LUSH where their staff dressed up as foxes and handed out leaflets supporting the ban, I went into lush with my wife shortly after and she got chatting to the staff about this,, 2 assistants agreed they knew nothing about fox hunting and they had been told to wear the costumes by managment.. the very first comments on every article on foxhunting always mentions toffs, class ect, this as been proven its not true even the extreme antis admit this but folk who are not aware of the true facts still believe its a toff hobby only because that is the way it is portrayed by the media..
so 300 at most most times 200 == if I remember correctly there were 400000 involved in a march in london prior to the ban, and if we went through this again i would bet this would double.. (awaiting uk population numbers now as a defence) im not patronnising anyone just asking for them to make up their mind with real facts not what is media hype,, last year(2012) there was another stunt by LUSH where their staff dressed up as foxes and handed out leaflets supporting the ban, I went into lush with my wife shortly after and she got chatting to the staff about this,, 2 assistants agreed they knew nothing about fox hunting and they had been told to wear the costumes by managment.. the very first comments on every article on foxhunting always mentions toffs, class ect, this as been proven its not true even the extreme antis admit this but folk who are not aware of the true facts still believe its a toff hobby only because that is the way it is portrayed by the media.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 1 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

And 3 times that number marched against the Iraq war, so your point is.

Oh and of those who went to beat cops up on your march. How many were forced by their lords and masters?
And 3 times that number marched against the Iraq war, so your point is. Oh and of those who went to beat cops up on your march. How many were forced by their lords and masters? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Tue 1 Jan 13

GoodDoc says...

Everything has been said now, surely. People returning to rephrase the same points made 20 times already by other posters is a little tedious and as DJ George pointed out, this kind of shouting down of anyone who may disagree with antis has a precedent here and it does them no favours. Aside from countrylove, the ambilvalence or even support for hunting has been moderated, calm, and civil. Compare that with the kind of terms that countrylove has pulled out of the thread, it's a wonder why any of us try to use reasoned arguments.
.
Inthesticks; OK let me get it out of my system. I am *bored* of talking about how I or others comment - you're *still* doing it aren't you. One obsessive poster even comes back to have another go at riling me and getting my attention - it's truly pathetic. OK, I understand that you happen to think my style is arrogant and patronising. Thanks for the feedback. I've pulled out quotes from your comments that would give me and others the same impression about you - particularly with your continued insistence that your point of view is 'fact' - but that's not something I've wanted to focus on. Neither do I want to criticise you for your hypocritical dependence on belittling certain people, suggesting they should be at school. How would that go down in the car park, workplace, or racemeeting? Condescending much? I won't even point out, once again, these glaring inconsistencies you make, or self-contradictions - denying you've said something before quoting yourself saying it - which in my view stop anyone from taking your point seriously. Instead, I've tried throughout to discuss the article which you and others seem less and less able to do. Perhaps I should used a different strategy - when I'm feeling patronised I should forget the argument and spend my time trying to goad and insult people. Or maybe not.
.
So, I'm afraid I have reservations about taking advice on my behaviour from internet forum users who are happy to let unbridled abuse go unchecked, complain about pomposity, and yet seem to make a point of doing the things they're complaining about. I'm not the first or last here to mention the abusive, vitriolic diatribes from bored anoraks that have characterised the anti argument on this thread. Bearing in mind these insurmountable glaring personality disorders that Dr. Inthesticks has diagnosed me with, I'm amazed how contented I am with my life; I'm happily married, happily employed, and have a broad, eclectic mix of friends who don't seem to agree with you. In fact, at precisely the moment that you were furiously typing your most recent attempt at character assassination, I was with them and having a blast enjoying the last night of the year. So, you can spare me the advice - particularly as now the key points have been made, I see no reason for returning to read the next dose of life coaching. Ta-ta til next Boxing Day!
Everything has been said now, surely. People returning to rephrase the same points made 20 times already by other posters is a little tedious and as DJ George pointed out, this kind of shouting down of anyone who may disagree with antis has a precedent here and it does them no favours. Aside from countrylove, the ambilvalence or even support for hunting has been moderated, calm, and civil. Compare that with the kind of terms that countrylove has pulled out of the thread, it's a wonder why any of us try to use reasoned arguments. . Inthesticks; OK let me get it out of my system. I am *bored* of talking about how I or others comment - you're *still* doing it aren't you. One obsessive poster even comes back to have another go at riling me and getting my attention - it's truly pathetic. OK, I understand that you happen to think my style is arrogant and patronising. Thanks for the feedback. I've pulled out quotes from your comments that would give me and others the same impression about you - particularly with your continued insistence that your point of view is 'fact' - but that's not something I've wanted to focus on. Neither do I want to criticise you for your hypocritical dependence on belittling certain people, suggesting they should be at school. How would that go down in the car park, workplace, or racemeeting? Condescending much? I won't even point out, once again, these glaring inconsistencies you make, or self-contradictions - denying you've said something before quoting yourself saying it - which in my view stop anyone from taking your point seriously. Instead, I've tried throughout to discuss the article which you and others seem less and less able to do. Perhaps I should used a different strategy - when I'm feeling patronised I should forget the argument and spend my time trying to goad and insult people. Or maybe not. . So, I'm afraid I have reservations about taking advice on my behaviour from internet forum users who are happy to let unbridled abuse go unchecked, complain about pomposity, and yet seem to make a point of doing the things they're complaining about. I'm not the first or last here to mention the abusive, vitriolic diatribes from bored anoraks that have characterised the anti argument on this thread. Bearing in mind these insurmountable glaring personality disorders that Dr. Inthesticks has diagnosed me with, I'm amazed how contented I am with my life; I'm happily married, happily employed, and have a broad, eclectic mix of friends who don't seem to agree with you. In fact, at precisely the moment that you were furiously typing your most recent attempt at character assassination, I was with them and having a blast enjoying the last night of the year. So, you can spare me the advice - particularly as now the key points have been made, I see no reason for returning to read the next dose of life coaching. Ta-ta til next Boxing Day! GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Tue 1 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

ah come on twotone just pointing out the previous figures given do not add up,,, it really isnt that hard you know..

and i thought you had a agreed that the hunters were not toffs and had no lord and master.

i also notice no comments about the £367000 bill? funny how all the sab sites are failing to mention this too,, pretty quick at giving figures of fines given to hunts, figures of those attending, figures for everything involved in hunting for last 7 years, I can only think that the antihunt are a little embarassed by this costing.


.
ah come on twotone just pointing out the previous figures given do not add up,,, it really isnt that hard you know.. and i thought you had a agreed that the hunters were not toffs and had no lord and master. i also notice no comments about the £367000 bill? funny how all the sab sites are failing to mention this too,, pretty quick at giving figures of fines given to hunts, figures of those attending, figures for everything involved in hunting for last 7 years, I can only think that the antihunt are a little embarassed by this costing. . baileyuk
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Tue 1 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Not at all embarrassed, as Gavin Grant said,you can't put a price on justice.
So if if the RSPCA have to do the same again, I would support them both vocally and financially.
No one seems to mention that it costs £5000 per year to join the Heythrop. But having that kind of money to spend just to kill foxes, doesn't put you above the law.
Not at all embarrassed, as Gavin Grant said,you can't put a price on justice. So if if the RSPCA have to do the same again, I would support them both vocally and financially. No one seems to mention that it costs £5000 per year to join the Heythrop. But having that kind of money to spend just to kill foxes, doesn't put you above the law. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Tue 1 Jan 13

countrylove says...

twotone where you found the number £5000 from?? if they tried that up here they would be laughed at. stick a couple of quid in the cap at the begining of the hunt £5000 lmao. mrchuckles no i realise there are plenty of cosy townie types living in the country to. isnt it charming dear to live out here in the wild so terribly quaint. a degree in life wow i bow to your experience HAHA. we can see on here people who folowed hunts who have experience but are they listned to? NO they are just abused. stick your head in the sand. i seen you on other pages wining about horse racing. get a grip. OK i done my homework looked at the poll you talk about and firstly its under 2000 people thats less than nether poppleton!! amazing how easy it is to make dumb people think that 2000 people represents a country. in same article i read this what you forgotten to say ""Responses from 123 hunts found that a third had more subscribers and slightly more – 37% – reported a rise in membership of supporters' clubs. Only 6.9% carried out less hunting than before the ban, under 2% were regularly followed by hostile monitors and 85.2% felt able to offer a "fox control" service to local farmer"". look i understand why you people are pi$$ed off cos u didnt get ur way and people ignore your propaganda and hunts still go on. but like i been saying that AINT GONNA CHANGE get used to it. move on with ur life!
twotone where you found the number £5000 from?? if they tried that up here they would be laughed at. stick a couple of quid in the cap at the begining of the hunt £5000 lmao. mrchuckles no i realise there are plenty of cosy townie types living in the country to. isnt it charming dear to live out here in the wild so terribly quaint. a degree in life wow i bow to your experience HAHA. we can see on here people who folowed hunts who have experience but are they listned to? NO they are just abused. stick your head in the sand. i seen you on other pages wining about horse racing. get a grip. OK i done my homework looked at the poll you talk about and firstly its under 2000 people thats less than nether poppleton!! amazing how easy it is to make dumb people think that 2000 people represents a country. in same article i read this what you forgotten to say ""Responses from 123 hunts found that a third had more subscribers and slightly more – 37% – reported a rise in membership of supporters' clubs. Only 6.9% carried out less hunting than before the ban, under 2% were regularly followed by hostile monitors and 85.2% felt able to offer a "fox control" service to local farmer"". look i understand why you people are pi$$ed off cos u didnt get ur way and people ignore your propaganda and hunts still go on. but like i been saying that AINT GONNA CHANGE get used to it. move on with ur life! countrylove
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Tue 1 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Not at all embarrassed, as Gavin Grant said,you can't put a price on justice.
So if if the RSPCA have to do the same again, I would support them both vocally and financially.
No one seems to mention that it costs £5000 per year to join the Heythrop. But having that kind of money to spend just to kill foxes, doesn't put you above the law.
perhaps the police forces up and down the country and those affected by crime should be told the same, as they have to look at the chances of a positive confiction in relation to evidence and costs.
According to countryside alliance it costs no where near what you suggest?

the law as it stands or the law in your world? I personally am not above the law I going hunting within the current hunting law and stay within it and i have not witnessed anything different on the hunts I support!

but through your argument £5000 is a huge amount of money to be a hunt member so £367000 is ? i,m sure behind the scenes the RSPCA are having some meetings re the justification of this, obviously they wont make it common knowledge, yet.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: Not at all embarrassed, as Gavin Grant said,you can't put a price on justice. So if if the RSPCA have to do the same again, I would support them both vocally and financially. No one seems to mention that it costs £5000 per year to join the Heythrop. But having that kind of money to spend just to kill foxes, doesn't put you above the law.[/p][/quote]perhaps the police forces up and down the country and those affected by crime should be told the same, as they have to look at the chances of a positive confiction in relation to evidence and costs. According to countryside alliance it costs no where near what you suggest? the law as it stands or the law in your world? I personally am not above the law I going hunting within the current hunting law and stay within it and i have not witnessed anything different on the hunts I support! but through your argument £5000 is a huge amount of money to be a hunt member so £367000 is ? i,m sure behind the scenes the RSPCA are having some meetings re the justification of this, obviously they wont make it common knowledge, yet. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Tue 1 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site.

I quite understand if you don't believe them as the liars also claimed on their site that they hunted within the law.

bailey, I fully agree £367000 is a huge amount to join a hunt. Which one charges that?

And I would be very interested to know which hunt lets you throw a couple of quid into the cap for a day's hunting. Even the Saltersgate charge £25 LOL
The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site. I quite understand if you don't believe them as the liars also claimed on their site that they hunted within the law. bailey, I fully agree £367000 is a huge amount to join a hunt. Which one charges that? And I would be very interested to know which hunt lets you throw a couple of quid into the cap for a day's hunting. Even the Saltersgate charge £25 LOL twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Tue 1 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

twotone you know what is meant but i will explain a little bit further. you claim £5000 is alot of money to pay to hunt foxes pre ban or drag hunt ect after the ban. as you say having this amount of money just to hunt foxes, yet having £367000 to defend a fox.

its strange that not even the RSPCA own website is showing the costings. wonder why.

but thanks for the saltersgate fees,,just shows you dont have to be a toff to enjoy a hunt,
twotone you know what is meant but i will explain a little bit further. you claim £5000 is alot of money to pay to hunt foxes pre ban or drag hunt ect after the ban. as you say having this amount of money just to hunt foxes, yet having £367000 to defend a fox. its strange that not even the RSPCA own website is showing the costings. wonder why. but thanks for the saltersgate fees,,just shows you dont have to be a toff to enjoy a hunt, baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Tue 1 Jan 13

countrylove says...

on the heythrop site? cant find it any where on there can you give a link seeing as you have taken that figure off of it. its not them i dont beleve.
which hunts allow a couple of quid most of them. most ppl that follow hunts are not members and dont pay subscriptions and they pay at the begining of every hunt. couple of quid maybe fiver at most for following in car or quad and 10 or 20 to be on a horse depending on the hunt. for a days ride thats cheap not exactly toffs. come along 1 day i recomend it.
on the heythrop site? cant find it any where on there can you give a link seeing as you have taken that figure off of it. its not them i dont beleve. which hunts allow a couple of quid most of them. most ppl that follow hunts are not members and dont pay subscriptions and they pay at the begining of every hunt. couple of quid maybe fiver at most for following in car or quad and 10 or 20 to be on a horse depending on the hunt. for a days ride thats cheap not exactly toffs. come along 1 day i recomend it. countrylove
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Tue 1 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Send me a meet card and I promise I'll be there, might even bring my video camera.

Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site, it's been decimated since the court case. All their corporate sponsors have been removed as well LOL.

You'll just have to give them a ring tomorrow and then come back on here and let us know what they told you.
Send me a meet card and I promise I'll be there, might even bring my video camera. Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site, it's been decimated since the court case. All their corporate sponsors have been removed as well LOL. You'll just have to give them a ring tomorrow and then come back on here and let us know what they told you. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

11:44pm Tue 1 Jan 13

countrylove says...

HAHA listen to ur self!
""The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site.""
""Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site"" more BS from the antis then what a suprise. dont pass on the propaganda that ur fed unless u make sure its true first. lmfao busted!
HAHA listen to ur self! ""The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site."" ""Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site"" more BS from the antis then what a suprise. dont pass on the propaganda that ur fed unless u make sure its true first. lmfao busted! countrylove
  • Score: 0

8:05am Wed 2 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

have a read of the post from an anti hunt supporter on gazette post,, "antis are uping the action and targeting people involved in hunting personally and when they least expect it"

twotone as quoted several things in this discussion but fails everytime in following his quotes with proof, he either backs away and keeps quiet or tries to twist it into a funny comment.
have a read of the post from an anti hunt supporter on gazette post,, "antis are uping the action and targeting people involved in hunting personally and when they least expect it" twotone as quoted several things in this discussion but fails everytime in following his quotes with proof, he either backs away and keeps quiet or tries to twist it into a funny comment. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

8:15am Wed 2 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

There is something monstrously hypocritical about such profligacy and waste when the RSPCA is placing fundraising advertisements, claiming that "animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are reaching unprecedented levels in modern times". Paying a handful of lawyers more than £300,000 for a few weeks' work which had no impact on animal welfare, months after announcing 130 redundancies to address deficits on its £115 million annual turnover, suggests an organisation that has lost its way.

RSPCA membership has plummeted to just 29,000 and, while it will not disappear overnight, unless it refocuses on real animal welfare issues rather than a political animal rights agenda, it will progressively lose the support of the moderate majority.


as ive said it seems questions are now being asked of the RSPCA..
There is something monstrously hypocritical about such profligacy and waste when the RSPCA is placing fundraising advertisements, claiming that "animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are reaching unprecedented levels in modern times". Paying a handful of lawyers more than £300,000 for a few weeks' work which had no impact on animal welfare, months after announcing 130 redundancies to address deficits on its £115 million annual turnover, suggests an organisation that has lost its way. RSPCA membership has plummeted to just 29,000 and, while it will not disappear overnight, unless it refocuses on real animal welfare issues rather than a political animal rights agenda, it will progressively lose the support of the moderate majority. as ive said it seems questions are now being asked of the RSPCA.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:36am Wed 2 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

The Law will remain for this full term of coalition. So i suspect the frustrated repetitive rantings will go on for a long time from the unhappy pro hunt lobby.

Ugly people are in a minority throughout this country. The vast majority of the United kingdoms citizens disagree with Fox Hunting and so it shall remain illegal.
The Law will remain for this full term of coalition. So i suspect the frustrated repetitive rantings will go on for a long time from the unhappy pro hunt lobby. Ugly people are in a minority throughout this country. The vast majority of the United kingdoms citizens disagree with Fox Hunting and so it shall remain illegal. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

10:20am Wed 2 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

so it seems that the law may not be here to stay? by your own admission?

rantings? have a count of how many posts above contains rantings, abuse, and then also add those on the gazette website where a direct threat as been voiced towards those that hunt.


even your last comment was ended with an attempted insult.
so it seems that the law may not be here to stay? by your own admission? rantings? have a count of how many posts above contains rantings, abuse, and then also add those on the gazette website where a direct threat as been voiced towards those that hunt. even your last comment was ended with an attempted insult. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 2 Jan 13

ceebeelee says...

Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?
Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time? ceebeelee
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Wed 2 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

and you come to the press to cheer yourself up? jolly good!
and you come to the press to cheer yourself up? jolly good! baileyuk
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Wed 2 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

ceebeelee wrote:
Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?
What's up has Jeremy Kyle finished and the latest episode of some soap yet to start?
[quote][p][bold]ceebeelee[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?[/p][/quote]What's up has Jeremy Kyle finished and the latest episode of some soap yet to start? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Wed 2 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

countrylove wrote:
HAHA listen to ur self!
""The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site.""
""Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site"" more BS from the antis then what a suprise. dont pass on the propaganda that ur fed unless u make sure its true first. lmfao busted!
Congratulations, you are a little more comprehensible when you post on this site prior to your half of shandy.

So what did the Heythrop tell you there annual subscriptions cost? Or did you think it was easier to just claim that I wasn't telling the truth?
[quote][p][bold]countrylove[/bold] wrote: HAHA listen to ur self! ""The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site."" ""Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site"" more BS from the antis then what a suprise. dont pass on the propaganda that ur fed unless u make sure its true first. lmfao busted![/p][/quote]Congratulations, you are a little more comprehensible when you post on this site prior to your half of shandy. So what did the Heythrop tell you there annual subscriptions cost? Or did you think it was easier to just claim that I wasn't telling the truth? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Wed 2 Jan 13

ceebeelee says...

twotonethomas wrote:
ceebeelee wrote:
Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?
What's up has Jeremy Kyle finished and the latest episode of some soap yet to start?
Correct. I've 8 and a half hours to occupy myself. I think I may have touched a nerve? It does make me chuckle tho', everyone trying to out-smart each other and correct their grammar. At least it's not resorted to another argument about the wonders of Thatcher or the way that immigrants/southerne
rs are destroying York. Why can't you have a friendly debate, agree to disagree and then get on with your lives.....
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ceebeelee[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?[/p][/quote]What's up has Jeremy Kyle finished and the latest episode of some soap yet to start?[/p][/quote]Correct. I've 8 and a half hours to occupy myself. I think I may have touched a nerve? It does make me chuckle tho', everyone trying to out-smart each other and correct their grammar. At least it's not resorted to another argument about the wonders of Thatcher or the way that immigrants/southerne rs are destroying York. Why can't you have a friendly debate, agree to disagree and then get on with your lives..... ceebeelee
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Wed 2 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

There were no wonders to Thatcher, those viking immigrants did ruin York and I thought this was a friendly debate.

Don't believe me? Come out sabbing monitoring and see how unfriendly they get when they think that you might stop them tasting blood.
There were no wonders to Thatcher, those viking immigrants did ruin York and I thought this was a friendly debate. Don't believe me? Come out sabbing monitoring and see how unfriendly they get when they think that you might stop them tasting blood. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Wed 2 Jan 13

ceebeelee says...

twotonethomas wrote:
There were no wonders to Thatcher, those viking immigrants did ruin York and I thought this was a friendly debate.

Don't believe me? Come out sabbing monitoring and see how unfriendly they get when they think that you might stop them tasting blood.
OK. Clearly got a different idea of what friendly means. No bother, I said what I wanted to.

And as it stands I'm against Fox Hunting too.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: There were no wonders to Thatcher, those viking immigrants did ruin York and I thought this was a friendly debate. Don't believe me? Come out sabbing monitoring and see how unfriendly they get when they think that you might stop them tasting blood.[/p][/quote]OK. Clearly got a different idea of what friendly means. No bother, I said what I wanted to. And as it stands I'm against Fox Hunting too. ceebeelee
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Wed 2 Jan 13

countrylove says...

twotty are you serious?! you realy expect other ppl to go round doing ur research for u? no sonny if u make up a claim and cant back it up expect to be called out! ur the 1 saying it not us! like i said BUSTED!
twotty are you serious?! you realy expect other ppl to go round doing ur research for u? no sonny if u make up a claim and cant back it up expect to be called out! ur the 1 saying it not us! like i said BUSTED! countrylove
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Wed 2 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

In one of your earlier drunken rants you accused antis of trying to hurt horses. I realise that now you appear to have sobered up, you may not remember talking such carp.

However if you stand by your ridiculous claims then show us the evidence. Preferably before you return to the drink
In one of your earlier drunken rants you accused antis of trying to hurt horses. I realise that now you appear to have sobered up, you may not remember talking such carp. However if you stand by your ridiculous claims then show us the evidence. Preferably before you return to the drink twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

8:20am Thu 3 Jan 13

Boadicea says...

bloodaxe wrote:
working class tory wrote:
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.
You're a victim of false-consciousness.
This isn't true. There are a lot of people opposed to fox hunting.
I don't like foxes and don't think they are cute but I don't think it is right for them to be torn to pieces by dogs.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]working class tory[/bold] wrote: The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government. It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against. As usual they were chasing the popular vote.[/p][/quote]You're a victim of false-consciousness.[/p][/quote]This isn't true. There are a lot of people opposed to fox hunting. I don't like foxes and don't think they are cute but I don't think it is right for them to be torn to pieces by dogs. Boadicea
  • Score: 0

8:44am Thu 3 Jan 13

Woody G Mellor says...

Wow! I've not looked at this thread for a few days and I'm amazed at the number of posts!

Obviously a passionate subject for both sides.

Looking at the numbers of posters for and against fox hunting, I see "against" posters vastly outnumber the "for" posters. Of which the pro hunters number approximately 2.

Regardless of the anonymous pro hunting reporters from the Press, we can all see that interest and support of the Boxing Day meets are rapidly dwindling year on year, although I know I'll be shouted down once again for speaking what I see.
As someone who grew up in Malton and as a kid would go watch them gather on Boxing Day, believe me, thankfully there is no where near the amount of riders and spectators that their used to be.

Bye bye unwanted, not needed evil pastime.
Wow! I've not looked at this thread for a few days and I'm amazed at the number of posts! Obviously a passionate subject for both sides. Looking at the numbers of posters for and against fox hunting, I see "against" posters vastly outnumber the "for" posters. Of which the pro hunters number approximately 2. Regardless of the anonymous pro hunting reporters from the Press, we can all see that interest and support of the Boxing Day meets are rapidly dwindling year on year, although I know I'll be shouted down once again for speaking what I see. As someone who grew up in Malton and as a kid would go watch them gather on Boxing Day, believe me, thankfully there is no where near the amount of riders and spectators that their used to be. Bye bye unwanted, not needed evil pastime. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Thu 3 Jan 13

countrylove says...

woody cant count a typical anti who doesnt notice hunting support. i skimmed and found at least 8 ppl here in favour so thats 4x his estimate. in denial me thinks!!! impresive for such a townie midleclass urban city like york. oh he also didnt notice the article that twotty posted and i looked up which said 37% of hunts have a rise in members and 82% still offer fox control. 8 yrs down the line and what a suprise hunts r still going strong foxes r still killed and the townies r spitting feathers!!! didums! but yeh u can pretend its going down hill so that means u wont need to attend our hunts any more? love it! heres to another year of hunting!!
woody cant count a typical anti who doesnt notice hunting support. i skimmed and found at least 8 ppl here in favour so thats 4x his estimate. in denial me thinks!!! impresive for such a townie midleclass urban city like york. oh he also didnt notice the article that twotty posted and i looked up which said 37% of hunts have a rise in members and 82% still offer fox control. 8 yrs down the line and what a suprise hunts r still going strong foxes r still killed and the townies r spitting feathers!!! didums! but yeh u can pretend its going down hill so that means u wont need to attend our hunts any more? love it! heres to another year of hunting!! countrylove
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Thu 3 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Do we have someone who can translate drunken inbred bumpkin into English please?
Do we have someone who can translate drunken inbred bumpkin into English please? twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Thu 3 Jan 13

countrylove says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Do we have someone who can translate drunken inbred bumpkin into English please?
thats an intresting point of view for a rural councilor. wow i had no idea. is it normal for councilors to come onto websites effing and blinding and insulting any one who disagrees?? mr woodward im suprised u r not more careful about how u conduct urself.
if any one on here would like to speak to tom woodward more direcly perhaps about his sugestion of incest or general abuse etc his contact details r on the pickering council website or even pop by his b&b ashfield house in pickering. im sure someone in his position is happy to stand by his comments face to face.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: Do we have someone who can translate drunken inbred bumpkin into English please?[/p][/quote]thats an intresting point of view for a rural councilor. wow i had no idea. is it normal for councilors to come onto websites effing and blinding and insulting any one who disagrees?? mr woodward im suprised u r not more careful about how u conduct urself. if any one on here would like to speak to tom woodward more direcly perhaps about his sugestion of incest or general abuse etc his contact details r on the pickering council website or even pop by his b&b ashfield house in pickering. im sure someone in his position is happy to stand by his comments face to face. countrylove
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Thu 3 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

agreed countrylove.. as a councillor he should know how to conduct himself in a public forum, especially as the forum is the local newspaper of the area he is supposed to represent in a fair and equal way..
agreed countrylove.. as a councillor he should know how to conduct himself in a public forum, especially as the forum is the local newspaper of the area he is supposed to represent in a fair and equal way.. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Thu 3 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

I tell people where I stand and put myself up for election, you should try it instead of hiding behind a computer keyboard.
I tell people where I stand and put myself up for election, you should try it instead of hiding behind a computer keyboard. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Thu 3 Jan 13

countrylove says...

where u stand? u mean u call ppl inbred and thick if u dont agree with them? do u advertise that as where u stand? u consider any one who doesnt care about hunting or suports it be into incest? thats where u stand? wow so noble of u. ppl like u cant make the diference between ur opinion and insults. thats why ur unfit for office.
where u stand? u mean u call ppl inbred and thick if u dont agree with them? do u advertise that as where u stand? u consider any one who doesnt care about hunting or suports it be into incest? thats where u stand? wow so noble of u. ppl like u cant make the diference between ur opinion and insults. thats why ur unfit for office. countrylove
  • Score: 0

8:02am Fri 4 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Wish I had a pound for every time I've been told I'm unfit for office, strange it's always by people who either derive pleasure from abusing animals or who don't care much for people who are struggling.

PS If you ever find the balls to stand for election, I hope I get to see your campaign leaflet, it would be a laugh :)
Wish I had a pound for every time I've been told I'm unfit for office, strange it's always by people who either derive pleasure from abusing animals or who don't care much for people who are struggling. PS If you ever find the balls to stand for election, I hope I get to see your campaign leaflet, it would be a laugh :) twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

10:22am Fri 4 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

The final whistle goes
The final whistle goes Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

10:23am Fri 4 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

TwotoneThomas wins by a country mile!

Now lets call it a day and return to supporting the fantastic RSPCA
TwotoneThomas wins by a country mile! Now lets call it a day and return to supporting the fantastic RSPCA Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Fri 4 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

just because you are elected does in no way mean you are better then everyone else, it only means you may be better then the few people you are up for election against... not better then those in your constituency.
just because you are elected does in no way mean you are better then everyone else, it only means you may be better then the few people you are up for election against... not better then those in your constituency. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Fri 4 Jan 13

countrylove says...

hah and that guy has the cheek to say other ppl r patronising! no one is complaining bout ur views its the constant pathetic abuse to any one who disagrees which makes u unfit. how can u represent ppl when u think anyone who doesnt spell is inbred.
hoofarted yep of course ur the judge aint u and in no way one sided. duuuh. so tommy woodward wins and we r all gonna stop hunting and no more cutey lil foxies r gonna die? in ur dreams! until the antis with there propaganda can think of a way of stopping hunting then those hunters gonna win every time! go snivel about it.
hah and that guy has the cheek to say other ppl r patronising! no one is complaining bout ur views its the constant pathetic abuse to any one who disagrees which makes u unfit. how can u represent ppl when u think anyone who doesnt spell is inbred. hoofarted yep of course ur the judge aint u and in no way one sided. duuuh. so tommy woodward wins and we r all gonna stop hunting and no more cutey lil foxies r gonna die? in ur dreams! until the antis with there propaganda can think of a way of stopping hunting then those hunters gonna win every time! go snivel about it. countrylove
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Fri 4 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Aww, which one went running to the Town Council then because they got upset?

As that was a waste of time, you can try the District Council instead. I suggest that when you write to Anthony Winship, the council solicitor, that you don't mention that you enjoy killing animals. It does kind of ruin the big hard hunter persona when you run off crying about a debate on a newspaper website :)
Aww, which one went running to the Town Council then because they got upset? As that was a waste of time, you can try the District Council instead. I suggest that when you write to Anthony Winship, the council solicitor, that you don't mention that you enjoy killing animals. It does kind of ruin the big hard hunter persona when you run off crying about a debate on a newspaper website :) twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

10:44am Sat 5 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

so someone as followed your advice and stood up for themselves and made a complaint against you? fair play to them.

I am a little concerned though that you say dont mention hunting when contacting Anthony Winship, surely as a council solicitor his own views or even your own should not come into it and any complaint should be dealt within strict guidelines put down by the council and not individuals interests.
so someone as followed your advice and stood up for themselves and made a complaint against you? fair play to them. I am a little concerned though that you say dont mention hunting when contacting Anthony Winship, surely as a council solicitor his own views or even your own should not come into it and any complaint should be dealt within strict guidelines put down by the council and not individuals interests. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

11:59am Sat 5 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Lighten up for crying out loud, you can mention the fact that you enjoy killing animals if you want. I just thought it might tarnish the big brave hunter persona when you run off to teacher crying LOL
Lighten up for crying out loud, you can mention the fact that you enjoy killing animals if you want. I just thought it might tarnish the big brave hunter persona when you run off to teacher crying LOL twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sat 5 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

sorry but according to you i did,nt attend school so can you tell me what you mean by teacher please? LOL
sorry but according to you i did,nt attend school so can you tell me what you mean by teacher please? LOL baileyuk
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Sat 5 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

Evidence please, of where I said you didn't attend school.

(Note position of apostrophe in didn't) :)
Evidence please, of where I said you didn't attend school. (Note position of apostrophe in didn't) :) twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Sat 5 Jan 13

baileyuk says...

twotonethomas says...
11:26pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Kathy you must forgive them as they aren't that bright. When they should have been at school they were bonding with their fathers in the only way possible, by killing animals for fun.

So how is digeorge, having missed too many biology lessons, meant to know that chickens and fish are made of meat?


is this the comment you did not make??
twotonethomas says... 11:26pm Wed 2 Jan 13 Kathy you must forgive them as they aren't that bright. When they should have been at school they were bonding with their fathers in the only way possible, by killing animals for fun. So how is digeorge, having missed too many biology lessons, meant to know that chickens and fish are made of meat? is this the comment you did not make?? baileyuk
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree