Weather
Lush Cosmetics shop staff voice fox-hunting anger in Coney Street (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Lush Cosmetics shop staff voice fox-hunting anger in Coney Street
8:54am Thursday 15th October 2009
STAFF at a York cosmetics store donned home-made fox ears and tails to highlight claims that hunting foxes continues throughout England, despite it being illegal.
The front of Lush Cosmetics in Coney Street has been emblazoned with the words “The hunts are still at it”, with the same thing happening at the company’s other 88 shops across the UK. The messages will be removed later this week.
The events were part of a new campaign Lush has launched against hunting foxes, in support of the Hunt Saboteurs Association, which uses peaceful means in a bid to protect hunted animals.
Hilary Jones, director of ethics at Lush, said: “For those that spent years campaigning for a ban on hunting, there was a huge sense of relief and joy when the law was finally passed.
“But that has since changed to a terrible feeling of betrayal when it was seen that the law was not being enforced.
“The public wanted hunting to stop – we believe they still do and will share this sense of betrayal.”
More News stories
- Sarah's Law introduced to North Yorkshire
- Fire rips through York nightclub
- Cathy Stevenson sheds seven stone in marathon diet effort
- One-in, one-out policy at Malton Community Hospital
- Call for community stadium talks to clear the air following criticism
- Driver jailed after city centre chase
- Dog threats delay York bus service
- Heroic marine’s parents receive Elizabeth Cross medal
- East Yorkshire woman found safe
- Elected mayor deadline for York residents
Your Say YourPress
genghis khan, haxby says...
10:44am Thu 15 Oct 09
lets wait for a free vote in parliament next year when the incompetent and out of touch labour party are booted out . & this stupid law is kicked out
Soothsayer17, York says...
11:05am Thu 15 Oct 09
astraea, York says...
11:07am Thu 15 Oct 09
kennydebs, york says...
11:44am Thu 15 Oct 09
Runlikemad, Here, there & everywhere says...
12:03pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Pedro, York says...
12:12pm Thu 15 Oct 09
invisibleman, York says...
1:08pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Jassy, York says...
1:12pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sciencefan, York says...
1:27pm Thu 15 Oct 09
You also cannot blame those who wish to continue to partake in a legal sport if the persons who framed the law knew so little about what they were trying to ban they created a law that is virtually unenforceable. By its very nature a fox hunt will take place on private land over which neither the police or so called "saboteurs" have no legal right of access to enforce the law. There is also such poor understanding of a very overcomplicated law that we get the situation with the gentleman that were prosecuted for hare coursing after checking that their actions were legal. Their "crime" was allowing the hares to go free instead of shooting them!
As for the very cynical attempts at "protest by instruction" by Lush, I hope it backfires on them royally. Not because I am a huge hunt supporter, I have never hunted in my life, however I grew up in an area where hunting was prevalent and I understand why it happens and I think it is better to hunt than not. No I hope it backfires because it is wrong for a company to try and exploit their staff so cynically for financial reward and that is more revolting than anything in country sports.
bloodaxe, York says...
1:36pm Thu 15 Oct 09
genghis khan wrote:1. Foxes are not kept under control by hunting, as one defender of the practice said, they take out the old and infirm foxes.
ususal drivel from do gooder townies. lets wait for a free vote in parliament next year when the incompetent and out of touch labour party are booted out . & this stupid law is kicked out
2. Fox cubs are moved from one part of the country to another to keep up the numbers in different areas.
3. The master of hounds of the Buccleugh Hunt complained that after the ban on hunting, too many foxes were being shot, compared with the tally during the hunting regime.
4. Hunting is a sport designed to emphasise the hegemony of the landed class and their so-called independence of authority.
5. Townies produce the wealth of the country and buy the produce of the rural producers, thus keeping the rural economy buoyant.
6. The best argument against hunting is to look at the twerps who practice it.
7. Begin sentences with capital letters.
8. Never use a conjunction following a full stop.
Stu Pidd, York says...
1:39pm Thu 15 Oct 09
redr, York says...
1:56pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sciencefan, York says...
1:56pm Thu 15 Oct 09
bloodaxe wrote:If only your facts were right you might have put together a good argument. Sadly they are not, but jolly good try! I think your view of the facts may have been somewhat obscured by the chip on your shoulder (see point 5). I do however agree with your comments about the conjunction and capitalisation, there is always time for good grammar.
genghis khan wrote:1. Foxes are not kept under control by hunting, as one defender of the practice said, they take out the old and infirm foxes.
ususal drivel from do gooder townies. lets wait for a free vote in parliament next year when the incompetent and out of touch labour party are booted out . & this stupid law is kicked out
2. Fox cubs are moved from one part of the country to another to keep up the numbers in different areas.
3. The master of hounds of the Buccleugh Hunt complained that after the ban on hunting, too many foxes were being shot, compared with the tally during the hunting regime.
4. Hunting is a sport designed to emphasise the hegemony of the landed class and their so-called independence of authority.
5. Townies produce the wealth of the country and buy the produce of the rural producers, thus keeping the rural economy buoyant.
6. The best argument against hunting is to look at the twerps who practice it.
7. Begin sentences with capital letters.
8. Never use a conjunction following a full stop.
Jassy, York says...
2:19pm Thu 15 Oct 09
redr, York says...
2:23pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Mr Happy, york says...
2:54pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Now that would be a sport worth watching.
sciencefan, York says...
2:56pm Thu 15 Oct 09
redr wrote:Not my supporters, I am displeased but not shocked to see that before making an erudite comment you didn't actually read what you were commenting on.
Well done to the girls from Lush and to their company for highlighting this ongoing problem. To me this isn’t a debate between town and country, I have many friends and family who live in the country and on the whole they find this so called sport as sickening as I do. What this debate really highlights is how a certain section of country society believes that they should be allowed to do whatever they choose and that they are above the law. I wonder how the magistrates who sciencefan counts among his supporters would react if someone in their court were to plead not guilty because I don’t agree with the law that I’m accused of breaking.
I have never hunted in my life although I'm sure among my friends there must be a few huntsmen and women. I was simply seeking to address pedro's misconceptions about the people involved in country sports. I do think the law on this subject is bad law and in itself it is virtually unenforceable in many cases because of the complexity of the legislation and the fact that it is almost impossible in many cases to prove the requisite intent to commit the offence. That said, if the law is broken it must be enforced. Indeed in the case I cited previously the "offenders" were convicted and given absolute discharges as the magistrate considered that they had tried to act within the law but had breached it technically due to poor advice from the police and other legal representatives.
I do agree it is not a "town and country" debate. The debate is between those who think it is an acceptable activity, those who accept some country sports in some forms and those who don't support it at all. There are not enough of the latter to get an outright ban through Parliament. So now we have an unworkable compromise which keeps the first two groups happy and still upsets the "don't support camp". I do hope that the next government will repeal the law. Not because I support hunting but because it is a poor piece of legislation. If it is repealed the chances are it will not go back to parliament because it will probably not be possible to right a good law that will actually get passed through Parliament and the Lords.
Whistlejacket, York says...
3:13pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Unfortunately the Press article doesn't come up to the standards of the comments.
There is no explanation whether the shop staff demonstrating all just happen to be passionate anti-hunters or whether they are being paid to protest.
The article claims that the protest is
"in support of the Hunt Saboteurs Association, which uses peaceful means in a bid to protect hunted animals."
For those unfamiliar with the "peaceful" tactics of the Hunt Saboteurs, below is an extract from a Times article about their activities.
"They trespass and hide on private land, continue to wear masks or hoods, use horns to confuse hounds, scream abuse and threaten and intimidate anyone connected with the hunt. Occasionally fights break out, arrests are made and police will attend meets when there are safety concerns."
What strange bed-fellows for the gentle folk at Lush.
MHayworth, Surrey says...
3:22pm Thu 15 Oct 09
'well educated people including magistrates and lawyers that understand the reasons for and the arguments for and against fox hunting and make a reasoned choice to participate because it is in their opinion no crueler than trapping or gassing, I digress.... '
So, if we apply your logic above, shall we repeal the laws against rape because it is 'no crueler' than beating or killing women? It certainly explains why so many of your well educated magistrates mentioned above are so unsuccessful in prosecuting these hunting gangs.
Extreme cruelty is about unneccessary suffering. You can catch a fox in a cage trap easily (as many of us do when they need medical treatment) and shoot it humanely and call that pest control - when neccessary. Now lets compare that to the ritual of a large group of people getting on horseback with a pack of hounds (trained only to kill) and chasing one small animal through the countryside to sheer exhaustion before watching it being torn apart alive (no fictitious first bite to the neck -this is a frenzied kill). If the fox manages to go to ground, the thugs dig it out with Lurchers and either shoot it or throw it back to the hounds. Is this what you call sportsmanship?
They claim to take out only old or sick foxes. Is cruelty somehow more palatable when praticed on the old and infirm? How then do they describe the horrid practice of 'cubbing'. Oh sorry - I forgot the Countryside Alliance has just re-branded cubbing to 'Autumm Hunting'. Sound romantic to you?
David Cameron has a lot to answer for. He won't be fixing 'Broken Britain' with this new era of feral-minded leadership. Good for Lush! I expect this will bring them many new customers.
mztripps, says...
3:33pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Before anyone gets out of their pram, I support shooting and fishing. I just cannot get behind something as barbaric as fox hunting. Allowing one Canidae to rip apart other Canidae (yes, I can do my research and dogs/foxes are the same. Google is your friend…) is just plain wrong.
@MHayworth - Countryside Alliance has an extra misleading o between the C and U in country. They should drop it to give people a more honest view...
Boadicea, York says...
3:44pm Thu 15 Oct 09
I thoroughly agree with the girls at Lush, Bloodaxe and Mr. Hippy.
The people who are in favour of hunting in my opinion have nothing better to do with their spare time and are pathetic.
sciencefan, York says...
3:48pm Thu 15 Oct 09
MHayworth wrote:I fear you rather missed the point of the reference you quoted as it referred to whether those involved in country sports were "bumpkins" If you would like to try and make an argument please try and make it coherent. It makes it very difficult not to make you seem a bit silly. If the sexual assault laws required the offence to be witnessed on private property for a conviction, making convictions almost impossible to achieve, then I would suggest that the law was bad and ineffective and it should be repealed and replaced. And I think there may be just enough support to get that one through Parliament. I don't think its really comparable with Fox hunting though.
sciencfan says:
'well educated people including magistrates and lawyers that understand the reasons for and the arguments for and against fox hunting and make a reasoned choice to participate because it is in their opinion no crueler than trapping or gassing, I digress.... '
So, if we apply your logic above, shall we repeal the laws against rape because it is 'no crueler' than beating or killing women? It certainly explains why so many of your well educated magistrates mentioned above are so unsuccessful in prosecuting these hunting gangs.
Extreme cruelty is about unneccessary suffering. You can catch a fox in a cage trap easily (as many of us do when they need medical treatment) and shoot it humanely and call that pest control - when neccessary. Now lets compare that to the ritual of a large group of people getting on horseback with a pack of hounds (trained only to kill) and chasing one small animal through the countryside to sheer exhaustion before watching it being torn apart alive (no fictitious first bite to the neck -this is a frenzied kill). If the fox manages to go to ground, the thugs dig it out with Lurchers and either shoot it or throw it back to the hounds. Is this what you call sportsmanship?
They claim to take out only old or sick foxes. Is cruelty somehow more palatable when praticed on the old and infirm? How then do they describe the horrid practice of 'cubbing'. Oh sorry - I forgot the Countryside Alliance has just re-branded cubbing to 'Autumm Hunting'. Sound romantic to you?
David Cameron has a lot to answer for. He won't be fixing 'Broken Britain' with this new era of feral-minded leadership. Good for Lush! I expect this will bring them many new customers.
As for trapping in cages, i'm sure that could be done. However as foxes are vermin, farmers don't trap them, thats time consuming and expensive. They gas them or flush them out with dogs (which is still legal). It may not be nice but its what happens, because foxes are seen as being vermin along with rats. I'm not so sure a rat would get the same "humane" treatment, indeed the BBC showed program recently with rats being flushed out, hunted and killed by Dogs. The issue here is does the law relating to hunting work. The answer in my opinion is no.
corblimeymajor, YORK says...
3:48pm Thu 15 Oct 09
I believe in the circle of life - leave animals be, wild or otherwise, let them determine their own fate - we humans have surely got plenty of other things we can be doing without slaughtering foxes in such a barbaric and out-dated fashion?!
sciencefan, York says...
3:54pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Boadicea wrote:it is not against the law. It is illegal to intentionally hunt a fox , but the practice of hunting with dogs is not illegal. Indeed the circumstance under which you can and cannot kill a fox are so complicated it's not even worth trying to explain here. The question was raised and still has not been answered, as to whether the girls from Lush even care, or they were just doing their job?
I don't particularly like foxes but I think its wrong to kill animals indiscriminately in this barbaric way. This so called "sport" is now against the law and should be stopped.
I thoroughly agree with the girls at Lush, Bloodaxe and Mr. Hippy.
The people who are in favour of hunting in my opinion have nothing better to do with their spare time and are pathetic.
genghis khan, haxby says...
3:55pm Thu 15 Oct 09
bloodaxe wrote:sorry didn't realise it was a writing competition!!
genghis khan wrote: ususal drivel from do gooder townies. lets wait for a free vote in parliament next year when the incompetent and out of touch labour party are booted out . & this stupid law is kicked out1. Foxes are not kept under control by hunting, as one defender of the practice said, they take out the old and infirm foxes. 2. Fox cubs are moved from one part of the country to another to keep up the numbers in different areas. 3. The master of hounds of the Buccleugh Hunt complained that after the ban on hunting, too many foxes were being shot, compared with the tally during the hunting regime. 4. Hunting is a sport designed to emphasise the hegemony of the landed class and their so-called independence of authority. 5. Townies produce the wealth of the country and buy the produce of the rural producers, thus keeping the rural economy buoyant. 6. The best argument against hunting is to look at the twerps who practice it. 7. Begin sentences with capital letters. 8. Never use a conjunction following a full stop.
Whistlejacket, York says...
3:58pm Thu 15 Oct 09
The reason that landowners don't report the hunt for trespass and criminal damage is that the hunt contact them in advance to ask for permission to cross their land and to ensure that no livestock are disturbed. If permission is not granted, they try to avoid encroaching on that land. They also undertake to repair any damage.
A real landowner would know that.
If your shotgun was any less imaginary than your rolling acres, you would know that you never threaten anyone with a firearm.
Whistlejacket, York says...
3:58pm Thu 15 Oct 09
The reason that landowners don't report the hunt for trespass and criminal damage is that the hunt contact them in advance to ask for permission to cross their land and to ensure that no livestock are disturbed. If permission is not granted, they try to avoid encroaching on that land. They also undertake to repair any damage.
A real landowner would know that.
If your shotgun was any less imaginary than your rolling acres, you would know that you never threaten anyone with a firearm.
Runlikemad, Here, there & everywhere says...
4:07pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sciencefan, York says...
4:24pm Thu 15 Oct 09
mztripps wrote:Foxes are indeed a Canidae of the order Carnivora. However Foxes are in the Genus Vulpes and Dogs are in the Genus Canis. Not the same....at all. Seems your Biology is up there with your spelling and your handling of a firearm.
Nice one Lush and excellent points from Bloodaxe, couldn't agree more. For the record, country people are not all hunting obsessed bloodthirsty bumpkins. I do look forward to the hunt coming across my land…it gives me an excuse to get the shotgun out and report them for trespass and criminal damage. Funnily enough, the hunt doesn’t come my way that often anymore, if only more landowners would do the same. If they did, these losers would have nowhere to go and consign hunting to the history books where it belongs.
Before anyone gets out of their pram, I support shooting and fishing. I just cannot get behind something as barbaric as fox hunting. Allowing one Canidae to rip apart other Canidae (yes, I can do my research and dogs/foxes are the same. Google is your friend…) is just plain wrong.
@MHayworth - Countryside Alliance has an extra misleading o between the C and U in country. They should drop it to give people a more honest view...
mztripps, says...
4:33pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Canidae
Same family, different subgroup. What's your point exactly?
sciencefan, York says...
4:40pm Thu 15 Oct 09
mztripps wrote:My point is that your an idiot who clearly thinks it's big and clever to suggest that you would threaten someone with a firearm, in jest or otherwise.
Anyone is welcome to visit my real acreage anytime they like, they may well get the business end of my shotgun though :D I wish it was imaginary sometimes! And no the hunts don't ask permission, they never do. Is this the same hunts that chase foxes with a pack of dogs then call the dogs off and shot the fox so they can stay in accordance with the law? Mmm and apparently I'm the one with the imagination.
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Canidae
Same family, different subgroup. What's your point exactly?
You are also quoting a wikipedia article, so you clearly do not understand much about the difference between an order a family and a genus. Something that is borne out in your comments. Either take part in the debate without talking about your shotgun or go away.
MHayworth, Surrey says...
4:45pm Thu 15 Oct 09
It was the concept of any well educated people understanding the desire to participate in fox-hunting because it is (in the opinion of the hunter) 'no crueler than trapping or gassing'.
Are we now a society that decides what is acceptable behaviour by looking at a list of inhumane practices and defending the least cruel of them? Are we not intelligent enough to develop humane solutions?
Foxes are not classified as 'vermin'. They are pests to certain types of farmers and a blessing to many crop farmers who say foxes help to keep down the rabbit and vole populations that decimate their crops.
'Vermin' is however, a convenient term used throughout history for people to perform unspeakable acts of cruelty on other beings (whether animal or human). No surprise that it is used commonly amongst these thugs.
Jassy, York says...
4:52pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Or maybe I should ask the police to contact the press and request the information. Make for a great press article wouldn't it.
GoodDoc, says...
4:55pm Thu 15 Oct 09
There are hundreds of arguments that logically support fox-hunting, and a handful that don'tt - and most of them are suggested by do-gooders who are more than happy to eat pork from pigs that have been bled to death - but an instant kill from a pack of hounds... oh no no. Hypocrisy, ignorance and Pet Rescue mentality.
sciencefan, York says...
5:00pm Thu 15 Oct 09
MHayworth wrote:It may not be a concept that you like but it is a concept that exists. These are the realities rather than the aspirations, I do not set them I was simply observing them. You may not like it but I would suggest you will have to live with it, because these practices are not likely to disappear any time soon. Not with a law like the one we have now.
sciencefan - you still haven't managed to grasp my point.
It was the concept of any well educated people understanding the desire to participate in fox-hunting because it is (in the opinion of the hunter) 'no crueler than trapping or gassing'.
Are we now a society that decides what is acceptable behaviour by looking at a list of inhumane practices and defending the least cruel of them? Are we not intelligent enough to develop humane solutions?
Foxes are not classified as 'vermin'. They are pests to certain types of farmers and a blessing to many crop farmers who say foxes help to keep down the rabbit and vole populations that decimate their crops.
'Vermin' is however, a convenient term used throughout history for people to perform unspeakable acts of cruelty on other beings (whether animal or human). No surprise that it is used commonly amongst these thugs.
I would agree that there are far more humane ways to kill a fox than trapping or gassing. I was simply commenting that this is as far as I am aware, the reality of the methods normally used to control foxes. I agree, foxes are pests, however they are also by the very definition of the word, vermin (look it up).
You have your opinion but I would suggest "Thug" would be a term more appropriate to the Hunt Saboteurs than the hunters.
MHayworth, Surrey says...
5:46pm Thu 15 Oct 09
My point is that many people love foxes just as many others see them as pests. We are not likely to change opinions on either side of the argument but we should at least be looking for more humane ways to deal with the issue than by applying this arcane 'best of the worst forms of killing' methodology.
baileyuk, york says...
5:56pm Thu 15 Oct 09
all these folk who are against fox hunting should
A) witness the event first hand!
B) if lush staff, and I will be writing to Lush as the above story is a publicity stunt and nothing more, actually believe in action against cruelty to animals I ask them to do the same publicity stunt against Halal meat! of course they won,t do this for the same reasons most people won,t because of the racism card.
I would personally take them to an halal slaughter house in the midlands and then on a fox hunt and then lets see what they choose.
C) Back to city foxes,, it won,t be long before these foxes bite someone as they are getting that brave and are not scared of human contact.. a documentary on TV not long ago showed footage of city foxes and how close they got to homes ect.
why could,nt Lush just have a normal reopening after refurbishment like every other store? I will be another who will not be using them.
sayitasitis, york says...
8:08pm Thu 15 Oct 09
lets examine the following points raised earlier.
1. Foxes are not kept under control by hunting, as one defender of the practice said, they take out the old and infirm foxes.
Precisely why it is better than the alternatives which do not distinguish between old, injured, ill or young fit and healthy.
2. Fox cubs are moved from one part of the country to another to keep up the numbers in different areas.
Absolutely wrong - the only foxes moved around the country ar ethe ones "rescued" by RSPCA etc in cities and released in to "the wild"
3. The master of hounds of the Buccleugh Hunt complained that after the ban on hunting, too many foxes were being shot, compared with the tally during the hunting regime.
Probably because shot foxes are not always killed quickly and without pain but left to die slow painful deaths through disease or starvation.
4. Hunting is a sport designed to emphasise the hegemony of the landed class and their so-called independence of authority.
The comments of somebody who has more of a problem with class devide than the people you are trying to attack. Hunting was designed to cull the rogue foxes.
5. Townies produce the wealth of the country and buy the produce of the rural producers, thus keeping the rural economy buoyant.
Produce all the wealth you want, it will do you no good if there is no food to buy with it. which is more important to life food or money ?
6. The best argument against hunting is to look at the twerps who practice it. 7.
The best advert for hunting is ill reasoned arguments like yours
Begin sentences with capital letters. 8. Never use a conjunction following a full stop
Totally agree
MHayworth, Surrey says...
8:27pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Your point about it not being long before city foxes bite someone is ridiculous. Foxes are only aggressive when cornered and threatened directly. Those foxes that are less afraid of humans are just behaving like any other people-friendly wildlife. The squirrels and blackbirds in my garden are getting more and more friendly all the time. I don't assume for a moment that they will start biting! The sad part about friendly foxes is that they will get too close to those who wish to harm them and that can never be a good thing.
AdmiralNN, Nether Poppleton says...
9:43pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sayitasitis, york says...
9:55pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sayitasitis, york says...
9:58pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sayitasitis, york says...
10:09pm Thu 15 Oct 09
sciencefan wrote:No wild animal ever died peacefully in it's sleep tended by nurses and relatives.
MHayworth wrote: sciencefan - you still haven't managed to grasp my point. It was the concept of any well educated people understanding the desire to participate in fox-hunting because it is (in the opinion of the hunter) 'no crueler than trapping or gassing'. Are we now a society that decides what is acceptable behaviour by looking at a list of inhumane practices and defending the least cruel of them? Are we not intelligent enough to develop humane solutions? Foxes are not classified as 'vermin'. They are pests to certain types of farmers and a blessing to many crop farmers who say foxes help to keep down the rabbit and vole populations that decimate their crops. 'Vermin' is however, a convenient term used throughout history for people to perform unspeakable acts of cruelty on other beings (whether animal or human). No surprise that it is used commonly amongst these thugs.It may not be a concept that you like but it is a concept that exists. These are the realities rather than the aspirations, I do not set them I was simply observing them. You may not like it but I would suggest you will have to live with it, because these practices are not likely to disappear any time soon. Not with a law like the one we have now. I would agree that there are far more humane ways to kill a fox than trapping or gassing. I was simply commenting that this is as far as I am aware, the reality of the methods normally used to control foxes. I agree, foxes are pests, however they are also by the very definition of the word, vermin (look it up). You have your opinion but I would suggest "Thug" would be a term more appropriate to the Hunt Saboteurs than the hunters.
They die by being killed and eaten by something else because they got old or weak.
Cats kill mice and birds, dogs attack cats, foxes attack rabbits and chickens and hounds hunt foxes. nobody taught them they just do.
It is only mans interferences that boke up the natural cycle of things and removed the natural preditors to the Fox.
Question - why do hunt saboteurs cover their faces if they are peaceful and law abiding? surely it would be the hunt that civered their faces if they were breaking the law ??
Southern Badger, London says...
11:17pm Thu 15 Oct 09
fallingherethereandeverywhere, says...
11:35pm Thu 15 Oct 09
corblimeymajor wrote:I regurlarly see a fox on the roundabout between Asda and Sainsbury's..about 9 45pm when I am leaving work. It is in and out of the bushes in the middle of the roundabout..it is a beautiful animal
I saw a fox in Asda car park the other night - I think he is referred to as the "city fox" - he was very cute!! I believe in the circle of life - leave animals be, wild or otherwise, let them determine their own fate - we humans have surely got plenty of other things we can be doing without slaughtering foxes in such a barbaric and out-dated fashion?!
SuSuSu, Acomb says...
12:03am Fri 16 Oct 09
Alucard, Harrow says...
1:46am Fri 16 Oct 09
I have killed animals for reasons of culling, necesarry eating and more. But not out of sport.
Putting all pro- and anti arguments aside - why do you want to kill and make a sport out of it
Boadicea, York says...
9:46am Fri 16 Oct 09
hp01mp, says...
10:18am Fri 16 Oct 09
Lush also support an anti-whaling group called the Sea Shepherds, who have been responsible for mining and sinking vessels and attacking whaling stations. The Sea Shepherds have been denounced by Greenpeace for their tactics and are actually classed as a terrorist organisation by several governments (there's a good article on Wikipedia with links to several papers and articles on the group).
Lush are entitled to express their views, but their determination to support extremism is highly irresponsible. They could support moderate, peaceful organisations who actually have far more organised impact in their field. Instead they support the most extreme forms of 'direct action'.
Don't buy their products unless you wish your money to be spent on terror and extremism in the name of animal rights.
KMA69, Oxford says...
10:28am Fri 16 Oct 09
gc1979, malton says...
11:56am Fri 16 Oct 09
Funniest comment on this board! Being bitten by a fox! :^D
alfie, York says...
4:59pm Fri 16 Oct 09
baileyuk, york says...
7:20pm Fri 16 Oct 09
look at animals behaviour in safari parks, wildlife places even the monkeys on gib,, or even wildfowl when food is about,, they learn where an easy meal is and if they don,t get it some get aggressive..
beanbag, York says...
10:10pm Fri 16 Oct 09
Fellowtraveller1, York says...
11:28am Sat 17 Oct 09
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
1:01pm Sat 17 Oct 09
baileyuk, york says...
2:27pm Sat 17 Oct 09
well my local hunt went off fantatsic today no problems good support and where were the lush employees? oh yes making a profit which at the end of the day is what they are interested in! if Lush were as commited then they should have closed all the shops and attempted to upset a hunt.
when folk talk about hunting everyone involved is classed as a blood thirsty moron! prob the worst description they can use to give a bad image,, thats fine but these same folk when they defend their anti hunt anti cruelty jibes distnce themselves from the sabs and say peacefull protest ect,, unfortunately you are either a supporter,, blood thirsty moron, or anti hunt which puts you in the class of the sab who values vermin life more then they do human life!
and having being on the end of an ALF stunt a few years ago is what as made me so against these sabs,, the stunt they pulled if I had been a matter of seconds later I would have been killed!! my daughter was 2 at the time and she would have grown up without a father just for ALF to take a bit of action,, these type of groups are no better then the IRA or any other indiscriminate terrorist group.
baileyuk, york says...
7:07pm Sat 17 Oct 09
gc1979 is it as funny now?
The Vicar, York says...
11:38pm Sat 17 Oct 09
Post your number up or name the time and place..
Low life law breaking Cowards!
A taxpayer, York says...
11:44pm Sat 17 Oct 09
The Vicar wrote:After you Pot Kettle Black! Pity the poor luvs didn't check their own companies suppliers first as they'll find they're scoring an own goal.
I would be happy to meet anyone supporting or taking part in fox hunting face to face to let them know exactly what I think of them. Post your number up or name the time and place.. Low life law breaking Cowards!
GoodDoc, says...
1:37am Sun 18 Oct 09
And isn't it funny watching all these smear campaigns in action. Usernames from Oxford suddenly posting on the York news website with supposed first-hand experience of evil and criminal hunt supporters. Utter nonsense, not surprising the law is doing so badly on this.
baileyuk, york says...
11:56am Sun 18 Oct 09
Big Bad Wolf, East York says...
11:35am Mon 19 Oct 09
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
6:01pm Mon 19 Oct 09
Boadicea, York says...
6:15pm Mon 19 Oct 09
baileyuk, york says...
6:18pm Mon 19 Oct 09
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
7:18pm Mon 19 Oct 09
baileyuk, york says...
7:55pm Mon 19 Oct 09
was a sport? will be a sport!
why do those who don,t agree with hunting have to resort to name calling and then resort to mentioning class?
one minute i,m lowlife next i,m class, come on vote tory and get fox hunting reinstated!!
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
7:59pm Mon 19 Oct 09
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
8:02pm Mon 19 Oct 09
baileyuk, york says...
9:45pm Mon 19 Oct 09
the comments on this thread show that majority of the anti fox hunting actually know nothing about a foxes habits.
GoodDoc, says...
7:06pm Tue 20 Oct 09
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
8:01pm Tue 20 Oct 09
LittleTed, Toy Town says...
8:04pm Tue 20 Oct 09
GoodDoc wrote:What second-hand info ?
Littleted, I don't want to rain on your parade but hunting is as popular as it's ever been. The one local to my parents had a record turn-out last boxing day after the ban, and even nabbed 6 foxes! And no, they weren't upper-class, bloodthirsty monsters - mostly middle-aged farmers and their wives who ignore a law that is undemocratic and unenforcable. So take your second-hand info and pin it up to your Cute Wildlife calendar! ;)
KMA69, Oxford says...
10:30am Thu 22 Oct 09
And isn't it funny watching all these smear campaigns in action. Usernames from Oxford suddenly posting on the York news website with supposed first-hand experience of evil and criminal hunt supporters. Utter nonsense, not surprising the law is doing so badly on this.
Yes I'm from Oxford, and yes I'm a monitor. I dont however condone violence towards anyone on either side of the argument. But please dont call me a liar, If you want facts contact me your welcome to them.
KMA69, Oxford says...
10:33am Thu 22 Oct 09
KMA69 wrote:Sorry forgot to seperate the two. The first part was written by good doc. followed by my answer.
Vicar, look at you Mr Tough Guy, asking people to give out their number so you can ring them up. I'm guessing you're a teenager? I don't support hunts, but I know plenty of people that do. Perhaps you'd put your money where your mouth is and post YOUR number on here, I'm sure someone will get in touch! And isn't it funny watching all these smear campaigns in action. Usernames from Oxford suddenly posting on the York news website with supposed first-hand experience of evil and criminal hunt supporters. Utter nonsense, not surprising the law is doing so badly on this. Yes I'm from Oxford, and yes I'm a monitor. I dont however condone violence towards anyone on either side of the argument. But please dont call me a liar, If you want facts contact me your welcome to them.
Bethan Thackray, Danielle Staveley and Fabia Preece, of Lush in Coney Street, York, protest against fox-hunting with leaflets and products which are available at the store
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Taken for a Mug, York says...
10:35am Thu 15 Oct 09