The hunting community - nothing ever changes, it seems
Robin Carmody
Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural heritage"
and a banner containing a rewritten verse of "My Old Man's A Dustman" -
appropriate that such an old song, evoking a vanished world, should be
invoked to support the cause of hunting, though it is quite grotesque that a
9-year-old boy should be forced to hold it up, clearly against his will and
against the entire context of the only world he knows (see page 13 of
Friday's Guardian).
For all his rather arrogant smugness, Blair makes an accurate comment which,
as the Guardian's reporter comments sardonically, would have made the hunt
supporters even more furious had they heard it. Opening a research and
development centre at UCB Films, one of the biggest employers in Cumbria,
the PM said "... although there are many rural interests, there are also big
manufacturing and technology interests as well. And they are important not
just for the county but for the country as a whole." He is of course quite
right - it is very rare these days to come across a rural area where more
people work on the land than in what could be broadly described as "modern"
jobs - the media, computing, manufacturing, consultancy etc. Culturally it
is the same - I never hear folk music coming out of a sound system, I do
hear the sounds of the Top 40, and I'm sure it'd be the same in the more
hunting-oriented areas of Dorset. The hunting community privately know
this, but they hate anyone pointing it out and will never admit it in public
because they know that it will destroy the myth they have built for
themselves.
This sort of desperate aggrandisement of their own self-image, and an
attitude to the modern developments going on around them that veers from
desperate ignorance to actual strong opposition, has a long history.
Viewers of digital channel UK Drama might be enjoying the current repeat run
of "Flambards", a Yorkshire Television series based around the trilogy of
novels by K.M. Peyton set in the early 20th Century at a decaying old
country mansion, and itself produced as long ago as 1978 (also the last year
Kent won a knockout competition ... sigh). The terrifying,
wheelchair-bound, ultra-reactionary lord of the manor has such an opposition
to the aeroplanes being developed by one of his sons that he throws his
books on air travel on the fire, and the son is forced to go to a hideout to
develop his planes. Even then, hunting was widely seen as antiquarian and
medieval, and the tide of modernism was sweeping through Britain, even in
the heartlands of the pursuit. It is disheartening, but sadly not
surprising, to see the same old battles being played out nearly a century
later, the protagonists feigning blissful ignorance of how long this
nonsense has been going on. I do hope the hunting community will admit that
they were culturally defeated decades ago, but I fear that it is beyond
them, such is their tiresome and misleading arrogance.
One thing, though - I'm rather fond of foxhounds as pets. Maybe when the
government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
with the cats ...
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Jon°
third sentence when the gist of what you are laboriously explaining becomes
apparent, I switch off then.
Take a course in brevity.
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
Mel Rowing
One wonders how without the strongest appeal to the extended
immagination, how this article can have any real relevence to the
underlying issue.
Great revelation! The countryside as modernised! Sound the trumpets!
Do you know we now have electricity. Alleluia!
I do believe up the road they've installed a flush toilet somewhere!
What arrant nonesense! The countryside has modernised and so the
huntsmen should perhaps realise that their day has come and quietly
fade into history.
You could make the same arguments against morris dancing!
I've news for you pal. The traditions of the countryside and its
traditions are still alive and well. You will still find the life
surrounding the village hall goes on. People still stop and gossip to
one another on their weekly visits to the market town. Harvest
festivals still happen as do shooting parties. Horses are still
ridden around the lanes and by-ways. The county show still is a
significant event and so on and so on. People do not lie
undiscovered, dead in their beds, for weeks on end here.
It's when one reads such arrogant, patronising crass stupidity as this
that one despairs.
Will the urbanite ever be content before the complete sub-urbanisation
of the countryside is complete? Does he yearn for a countryside that
has become no more than an extension of his urban parks?
The foxhunting issue has nothing to do with modernisation or
conservatism. It's about freedom. Freedom to use one's own animals on
one's own land at one's own expense in a manner of their own choosing.
A freedom which if denied will benefit no one, not even animals, not
even foxes, will injure some and deny many a recreational and social
pursuit. All that will have been achieved is that you and others like
you will have the smug satisfaction of having imposed you self
perceived superior sense of morality on the rest of us.
So you want a foxhound as a pet. If this happens I hope you get one
and when you do I hope it craps in the middle of the carpet everytime
it feels the urge.
Your attitude towards the keeping of animals as pets illustrates
admirably youor perception of animals as playthings for your own
amusement rather than entities in their own right. Living toys!
Pack foxhounds live a dog's life literally rather than metaphorically.
They live amongst their own kind. Perhaps you should do the same.
Sitting up, Sitting down, begging, lying down, rolling over etc. etc.
in response to expectations of treats is not for them. They have a
real role as a working dog which makes upon them demands more akin to
those which nature intended.
Whatever, the case there will be a need for more like you for, rest
assured if this goes ahead thousands of hounds will need to be put
down. When this inevitability comes about I rather fancy that those
voiciferous opponents of hunting will disappear into the mists in
search of further targets for their moral zeal leaving the 'cruelty'
generated to those who are used to it.
By the way, you'd better get your lawn ready to accomodate a horse
also. There's going to be one or two of those to spare. Otherwise
it's going to end up feeding your pet foxhound or are you one of those
who feeds your dog vegetarian food?
Mel Rowing
peter
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> stated: -
good post Mel (Melvin or Melanie?)
I have news for Mr Curmudgeon of Portland. The county of Dorsetshire has
more hunts per acre than anywhere else in the UK. The hunts will not
stop hunting despite the best effort of the fascists like you to import
your childlike understanding of human society. Your post is only made
understandable by your youth. When you have grown up you will see the
world in a different light. Is there some problem in Portland with
chemicals?
You extol the virtues of multiculturalism whilst attacking the very
culture which is yours - like it or not. Stalin would have made good
use of you - have you applied to New Labour for a job in the PR
department? That's PR as in Propaganda.
And my dog sends you a bite.
--
peter
peter
<judg...@rr.net> stated: -
>On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 03:54:47 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
><ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday the prime minister was barracked by angry hunt supporters in
>>Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural heritage"
>>and a banner containing a rewritten verse of "My Old Man's A Dustman" -
>>appropriate that such an old song, evoking a vanished world, should be
>>invoked to support the cause of hunting, though it is quite grotesque that a
>>9-year-old boy should be forced to hold it up, clearly against his will and
>>against the entire context of the only world he knows (see page 13 of
>>Friday's Guardian).
>
>need to be forced to abuse animals. Their innocence will not allow
>them to volunteer for wholesale slaughter. Once corrupted their lives
>are ruined.
>
is that why New Labour killed 10 million healthy animals and the animal
rights lobby didn't say BOO! ?
>Most animals make lovely pets if given the chance. Same with children,
>they make wonderful people IF given the chance. No one is born an
>animal abuser, they are taught it.
>
>> Maybe when the
>>government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
>>Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
>>with the cats ...
>
>There will be plenty of homes for these animals should they be allowed
>to retire gracefully. Sadly I fear the hunters still have some use for
>the hounds, and will be slaughtering them in a vain attempt to make a
>lost point. But then that also says something about the evil people we
>are dealing with in hunting.
>
>
--
peter
Steve Glynn
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural
heritage"
> and a banner containing a rewritten verse of "My Old Man's A Dustman" -
> appropriate that such an old song, evoking a vanished world, should be
> invoked to support the cause of hunting, though it is quite grotesque that
a
> 9-year-old boy should be forced to hold it up, clearly against his will
and
> against the entire context of the only world he knows (see page 13 of
> Friday's Guardian).
>
>
> One thing, though - I'm rather fond of foxhounds as pets. Maybe when the
> government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
> Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
> with the cats ...
> --
> Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
>
>
I've never seen the attraction of hunting. However, I am prepared to
listen to people who enjoy it and might even (such a thing is hard to
credit, certainly) know more about it than do I. My wife used to hunt, not
because she enjoys inflicting cruelty on animals or because she's a toff
((it would be a mark of insincerety of purpose to look for toffs on the
Hessle Road in Hull) but because she enjoys riding and is quite good at it.
It's a terribly outmoded form of transport, certainly. I've always taken
the attitude that if God had meant us to thunder round the place on top of
something with the brain the size of a wallnut He wouldn't have created
black cabs. On the other hand, I quite enjoy swimming even though we
have such things as boats and bridges, so I suppose it's a case of live and
let live.
I would not, btw, recommend adopting a foxhound as a household pet. While
I'm sure your cats are able to handle most eventualities, do please recall
that the creature will be used to living as part of a pack, will be
unfamiliar with the concept of eating on its own out of a bowl rather than
out of a trough with its chums, and will play bloody murder not only with
your furniture but also with all the dead cool devices ypu use to be a
well-groovy member of the 21st century.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 25/05/02
Steve Glynn
"JudGeDreD" <judg...@rr.net> wrote in message
news:3d4c9c12...@news.rr.mex.ecoterminal.net...
> >Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural
heritage"
> >and a banner containing a rewritten verse of "My Old Man's A Dustman" -
> >appropriate that such an old song, evoking a vanished world, should be
> >invoked to support the cause of hunting, though it is quite grotesque
that a
> >9-year-old boy should be forced to hold it up, clearly against his will
and
> >against the entire context of the only world he knows (see page 13 of
> >Friday's Guardian).
>
> need to be forced to abuse animals. Their innocence will not allow
> them to volunteer for wholesale slaughter. Once corrupted their lives
> are ruined.
>
> they make wonderful people IF given the chance. No one is born an
> animal abuser, they are taught it.
>
> >government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
> >Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
> >with the cats ...
>
> to retire gracefully. Sadly I fear the hunters still have some use for
> the hounds, and will be slaughtering them in a vain attempt to make a
> lost point. But then that also says something about the evil people we
> are dealing with in hunting.
>
>
Sorry, but that is utter tosh.
I've never seen the attraction of hunting, but I know people who do enjoy
doing it (my wife, for one) and, quite simply, mouthing off about 'perverts'
and so forth is not an accurate description of reality.
Foxes can be a bloody nuisance, as anyone who's got a closer acquaintance
with the things than what they've seen on 'Pet Rescue' or 'Animal Hospital'
(where the poor little thing couldn't;don't make it through the night) will
tell you.
No one wants to exterminate foxes. However, if you want to keep chickens
or lambs (a pre-requisite for your Chicken McNugget or your doner kebab or
your scrambled egg on toast) you do need to be able to keep those sweet
little foxes and the poor little chickiewickies or the darling little
bouncy woolly lambs well apart.
Can you tell me a more humane way of doing it than hunting? Poison bait
is out, obviously, and traps are also out of the equation for reasons that
will be clear to anyone who's ever last a cat or a dog in a gin-trap.
I don't possess a high-powered rifle, and I honestly wouldn't trust my aim
to be sure of killing a fox quickly and cleanly with a shotgun in the dark.
While something from a rifle will kill the thing quickly and cleanly no
matter where you hit it, a the contents of a shot-gun cartridge will quite
possibly blow part of one of its legs off and condemn the poor creature to
a painful few days before it dies of hunger and gangerine.
Any positive suggestions you've got?
Your suggestion, btw, of taking in hunting hounds as domestic pets is. I
fear, utterly ludicrous. I love cats very much, but I would no more dream
of bringing in one of the outdoor cats (who are there to keep down the
rats -- another animal I like very much so long as it stays outside the
house) than I would think of sticking my hand in a food miser.
Get real.
Stephen Horgan
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
<A great deal of unnecessary verbeage omitted>
> I do hope the hunting community will admit that
> they were culturally defeated decades ago, but I fear that it is beyond
> them, such is their tiresome and misleading arrogance.
>
So what should a 'defeated' minority do. Commit mass suicide so as not to
mar the uniformity of the nation? I thought we had a general principle of
allowing and celebrating diversity in Britain, rather than classifying those
who are different as enemies. That approach is best summarised as Fascism by
the way.
> One thing, though - I'm rather fond of foxhounds as pets. Maybe when the
> government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
> Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
> with the cats ...
Foxhounds that have been trained to hunt are not suitable as pets. If
hunting is banned they will all be shot.
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Hayek
matt
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:e1b1d184.02080...@posting.google.com...
> You could make the same arguments against morris dancing!
>
> I've news for you pal. The traditions of the countryside and its
> traditions are still alive and well. You will still find the life
> surrounding the village hall goes on. People still stop and gossip to
> one another on their weekly visits to the market town. Harvest
> festivals still happen as do shooting parties. Horses are still
> ridden around the lanes and by-ways. The county show still is a
> significant event and so on and so on. People do not lie
> undiscovered, dead in their beds, for weeks on end here.
>
The thing is with morris dancing (and belive me I wince to say this) is that
its not particularly cruel, apart from the hideously irritating music and
the fact that I had to do it at primary school and look like a total arse in
the process. In fact morris dancing sits fairly near the top of my Most
Evil Thing lis but thats just personal taste.
Much as I hate morris dancing though I realise that it keeps many employed
in the tingly bells, wooded stick, silly white suit and accordian support
industry. It also teaches kids at a young age that they have no
coordination when it comes to dancing and enforces in their minds to stay
near the edge of the dance floor in later life, without this the terrible
dancers of the uk would plague our clubs up and down the country. The
worlds "matt you get to be the weight at the bottom of the maypole" when I
was supposed to be taking part in 'country pursuits' taught me this lesson
early in life.
My point is that fox hunting has more positive points (much as I hate to say
it) than it does negative ones, the idea of a fox being ripped to bits by
dogs controlled by a load of people in sill costumes on the back of horses
is puzzling as the humane solution. However as some one said a shotgun may
leave the fox wounded and prolong its suffering, in an ideal world it'd be
nice just to shoot them with a rifle so they are dead instantly but thats
not an option because of gun control laws.(And it has all the cultural bits
involved etc)
Sorry to any morris dancers,
Matt
Marc Living
wrote:
>Hopefully not a twisted perverted world you adopt.
<snip - more bigoted small-mindedness in the same vein>
You appear to be determined to make the huntsmens' point for them far
more eloquently than they possibly can.
--
Marc Living
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
toadflax
peter wrote:
Before long nature will sort this out, some terrible natural event
will occur like a major volcano or meteorite, causing decimated
harvets worldwide. Urban tossers will all stave, being unable to eat
their wonderful 'technology and manufacturing' and country people
worldwide, the only ones with the skills to grow food in very adverse
conditions will be the only ones left.
Indeed already those who are behaving unnaturally are perishing by the
million (drug users, homosexuals, heterosexuals who practice buggery
as a form of contraception (the reason for the massive aids levels in
africa along with inserting stones and rough objects in vaginas to
increase pleasure during sex - source Guardian 19 years ago))
It is worth reflecting that all civilizations that get to the stage
where they have great cities, infested with loosely moralled urbanites
who demand 'bread and circuses' get weaker and weaker as these people
get more and more disconnected from the real world. Eventually when
the percentage of unproductive scroungers in a city reaches a certain
point the infrastrucre cannot be maintained and the cirties collapse
under their own weight or are overrun by those with a more rural way
of life who arn't nicely shaved and made up and have other, more
brutal, priorities than saving foxy woxy or what unneccesary material
goods they can buy next.
Let these people enjoy their fools paradise while they can - quite
frankly most of them have long become incapable of doing anything
creative, spending their pasty faced days shuttling in metal boxes
between artificially conditioned flats offices resteraunts and
shopping centres, but then perhaps it is a good thing that their minds
stretch no further than physical comforts and unneccesary material
goods as otherwise they might then infest the countryside instead of
driving in futile circles around the M25 M42 and and M60 looking for
their next material fix..
toadflax
>Robin Carmody wrote:
>
>On Thursday the prime minister was barracked by angry hunt supporters in
>Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural heritage"
>and a banner containing a rewritten verse of "My Old Man's A Dustman" -
>appropriate that such an old song, evoking a vanished world, should be
>invoked to support the cause of hunting, though it is quite grotesque that a
>9-year-old boy should be forced to hold it up, clearly against his will and
>against the entire context of the only world he knows (see page 13 of
>Friday's Guardian).
>
>For all his rather arrogant smugness, Blair makes an accurate comment which,
>as the Guardian's reporter comments sardonically, would have made the hunt
>supporters even more furious had they heard it. Opening a research and
>development centre at UCB Films, one of the biggest employers in Cumbria,
>the PM said "... although there are many rural interests, there are also big
>manufacturing and technology interests as well. And they are important not
>just for the county but for the country as a whole."
>
environmental effects of 'manufacturing and technology interests',
floods the isle of portland and you end up in a council flat on a
drug infested estate in Yeovil
>
toadflax
>On Thursday the prime minister was barracked by angry hunt supporters in
>Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural heritage"
>and a banner containing a rewritten verse of "My Old Man's A Dustman" -
>appropriate that such an old song, evoking a vanished world, should be
>invoked to support the cause of hunting, though it is quite grotesque that a
>9-year-old boy should be forced to hold it up, clearly against his will and
>against the entire context of the only world he knows (see page 13 of
>Friday's Guardian).
>
>For all his rather arrogant smugness, Blair makes an accurate comment which,
>as the Guardian's reporter comments sardonically, would have made the hunt
>supporters even more furious had they heard it. Opening a research and
>development centre at UCB Films, one of the biggest employers in Cumbria,
>the PM said "... although there are many rural interests, there are also big
>manufacturing and technology interests as well. And they are important not
>just for the county but for the country as a whole."
I'll think of this when the sea level, rising inexorably due to the
environmental effects of 'manufacturing and technology interests',
floods the isle of portland and you end up in a council flat on a
dodgy estate in Yeovil
peter
<judg...@rr.net> stated: -
>On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:46:40 +0100, peter <Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>Whatever, the case there will be a need for more like you for, rest
>>>assured if this goes ahead thousands of hounds will need to be put
>>>down. When this inevitability comes about I rather fancy that those
>>>voiciferous opponents of hunting will disappear into the mists in
>>>search of further targets for their moral zeal leaving the 'cruelty'
>>>generated to those who are used to it.
>>>
>>>By the way, you'd better get your lawn ready to accomodate a horse
>>>also. There's going to be one or two of those to spare. Otherwise
>>>it's going to end up feeding your pet foxhound or are you one of those
>>>who feeds your dog vegetarian food?
>>>
>>>
>>>Mel Rowing
>>
>>good post Mel (Melvin or Melanie?)
>>
>>I have news for Mr Curmudgeon of Portland. The county of Dorsetshire has
>>more hunts per acre than anywhere else in the UK.
>
>Make the most of it wacko, time is coming to get you.
>
You and your big sister?
>> The hunts will not
>>stop hunting
>
>Oh yes they will. Like pedophilia it will be outlawed and perverts
>like you will be forced to accept that or become criminals.
>Just like your pervert grandfathers who supported bullfighting.
Oh my - a moron. Kill filed I'm afraid. Get back into your leather
underwear and watch those safety pins.
>
>>despite the best effort of the fascists like you to import
>>your childlike understanding of human society.
>
>Nothing wrong with being NICE. Everything wrong with being a pervert
>who enjoys animal abuse.
>
>>Your post is only made
>>understandable by your youth.
>
>Something you could do well to return to.
No, I meant the immaturity................. of youth.
>
>> When you have grown up you will see the
>>world in a different light.
>
>Hopefully not a twisted perverted world you adopt.
>
>>Is there some problem in Portland with
>>chemicals?
>
>Could well be. What does this have to do with your perversion? or in
>your mature complex, warped mind do you feel we should all run off and
>chase the chemical producers and leave you to your perversions in
>secret?
>
I wondered if the poor chap was affected in some way.
>>You extol the virtues of multiculturalism whilst attacking the very
>>culture which is yours - like it or not.
>
>Perversion has never been something to be proud of except in the mind
>of the perverted.
>
>>Stalin would have made good
>>use of you
>
>You would have been top of the hit list, so no consolation there
>either. What's it like being a pariah?
You tell me sonny.
>
>>- have you applied to New Labour for a job in the PR
>>department? That's PR as in Propaganda.
>
>Thankfully one does not need PR to see perversion in action. Your sick
>life is going to stop. Get with it or take some poison.
>
>>And my dog sends you a bite.
>
>Give him a loving pat on the head from us all.
>
Sorry she sent you a yawn - It began as a bite and ended up as a large
yawn.
>
--
peter
Mel Rowing
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aig7og$142g46$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
While
> I'm sure your cats are able to handle most eventualities, do please recall
> that the creature will be used to living as part of a pack, will be
> unfamiliar with the concept of eating on its own out of a bowl rather than
> out of a trough with its chums, and will play bloody murder not only with
> your furniture but also with all the dead cool devices ypu use to be a
> well-groovy member of the 21st century.
Now you've spoiled it!
I wanted him to find that out for himself!
Mel Rowing
peter
<judg...@rr.net> stated: -
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:12:30 GMT, "Stephen Horgan"
><ste...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>><A great deal of unnecessary verbeage omitted>
>>> I do hope the hunting community will admit that
>>> they were culturally defeated decades ago, but I fear that it is beyond
>>> them, such is their tiresome and misleading arrogance.
>
>>So what should a 'defeated' minority do. Commit mass suicide so as not to
>>mar the uniformity of the nation?
>
>
>> I thought we had a general principle of
>>allowing and celebrating diversity in Britain, rather than classifying those
>>who are different as enemies. That approach is best summarised as Fascism by
>>the way.
>
>pedophilia or any other warped practice?
If you think animals are morally responsible then you are mad. Animals
do not have rights and never will. Man is there to have dominion over
animals. That means protecting flocks from predators. Foxes are
predators. QED.
Human beings also do not have "rights" - it is a quaint way the
government of the day has to control the people farms by making the
idiots think they have rights for ever and in perpetuity whereas the
truth is these "rights" can be withdrawn as easily as they are granted.
One of the most insidious men in Britain is a Wolf - a predator. He
believes in "rights". He is also mad.
>
>>> One thing, though - I'm rather fond of foxhounds as pets. Maybe when the
>>> government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
>>> Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
>>> with the cats ...
>
>>Foxhounds that have been trained to hunt are not suitable as pets.
>
>That is a lie. Maybe not pets in a city house with children. But in
>the country with adults NO PROBLEM at all. I know three people who
>have seven such dogs. It's a pure fallacy and exactly the same is said
>by the perverts who have the retired greyhounds shot. Yet we all KNOW
>greyhounds make lovely pets.
and WE know a greyhound is not a foxhound - foxhounds are pack animals
and you would have to have a number of them and have a lot of land or be
willing to walk a lot!
>
>> If
>>hunting is banned they will all be shot.
>
>Only to continue your animal abuse perversion to the end. Your choice.
>
>
Do you support abortion on demand and homosexuality ?
--
peter
Stephen Horgan
> >news:aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> ><A great deal of unnecessary verbeage omitted>
> >> I do hope the hunting community will admit that
> >> they were culturally defeated decades ago, but I fear that it is beyond
> >> them, such is their tiresome and misleading arrogance.
>
> >So what should a 'defeated' minority do. Commit mass suicide so as not to
> >mar the uniformity of the nation?
>
>
have a person who considers their own moral case so strong that any who
disagree deserve nothing but repression and death. Such certainty exists in
all most who contirbute to the sum of human misery.
> > I thought we had a general principle of
> >allowing and celebrating diversity in Britain, rather than classifying
those
> >who are different as enemies. That approach is best summarised as Fascism
by
> >the way.
>
> If we allow the abuse of animals as a civil right, then why not
> pedophilia or any other warped practice?
>
There is a debate on wheather hunting constitutes 'abuse of animals' with
reasonable people on both sides of the argument. At best it is a balanced
judgement.
> >> One thing, though - I'm rather fond of foxhounds as pets. Maybe when
the
> >> government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of
the
> >> Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get
on
> >> with the cats ...
>
> >Foxhounds that have been trained to hunt are not suitable as pets.
>
> That is a lie. Maybe not pets in a city house with children. But in
> the country with adults NO PROBLEM at all. I know three people who
> have seven such dogs. It's a pure fallacy and exactly the same is said
> by the perverts who have the retired greyhounds shot. Yet we all KNOW
> greyhounds make lovely pets.
>
Foxhounds are not greyhounds, which are suitable for pets under most
circumstances.
> > If
> >hunting is banned they will all be shot.
>
> Only to continue your animal abuse perversion to the end. Your choice.
>
Foxes will also be shot, or snared or poisoned. Or is the control of an
animal that under many circumstances is a pest 'animal abuse perversion' as
well?
Robin Carmody
news:3d4b...@212.67.96.135...
>
> I'll think of this when the sea level, rising inexorably due to the
> environmental effects of 'manufacturing and technology interests',
> floods the isle of portland and you end up in a council flat on a
> drug infested estate in Yeovil
What do you have against Yeovil, Bob?
Robin Carmody
> will occur like a major volcano or meteorite, causing decimated
> harvets worldwide. Urban tossers will all stave, being unable to eat
> their wonderful 'technology and manufacturing' and country people
> worldwide, the only ones with the skills to grow food in very adverse
> conditions will be the only ones left.
>
> Indeed already those who are behaving unnaturally are perishing by the
> million (drug users, homosexuals, heterosexuals who practice buggery
> as a form of contraception (the reason for the massive aids levels in
> africa along with inserting stones and rough objects in vaginas to
> increase pleasure during sex - source Guardian 19 years ago))
Sheer paranoia - could only really be the work of somebody so desperate to
get his message heard that he posts under two pseudonyms, trying to convince
everyone else that more than one person thinks like he does. Hello Bob!
Robin Carmody
news:eYZx14Ew...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk...
>
> I have news for Mr Curmudgeon of Portland.
As opposed to Mr Curmudgeon of Sturminster Newton ...
> The county of Dorsetshire
A Heritage Britain PLC turn of phrase.
> You extol the virtues of multiculturalism whilst attacking the very
> culture which is yours - like it or not.
Hunting is not "my culture". Your culture is what you choose it to be - it
is what you do, what you consume, what you enjoy, what you take in etc etc.
Ergo Shakira's "Whenever, Wherever" is part of my culture because I listen
to it, and I think it's the best pop single of the year, but hunting isn't
part of my culture, because I never take part in it and I don't like it at
all.
Robin Carmody
> immagination, how this article can have any real relevence to the
> underlying issue.
It is all in the metaphors.
> Great revelation! The countryside as modernised! Sound the trumpets!
>
> Do you know we now have electricity. Alleluia!
>
> I do believe up the road they've installed a flush toilet somewhere!
>
> What arrant nonesense! The countryside has modernised and so the
> huntsmen should perhaps realise that their day has come and quietly
> fade into history.
I was simply making the point that the hunting community have *always*
resented the fact that new technological developments take place in the
countryside, as well as in the urban areas. "Flambards" seems to be a
pretty accurate picture of life in that social class in the early 20th
Century - a conflict between the old protectionist establishment and a new
generation who were developing such things as aeroplanes, which were very
new technology at the time. This conflict is still going on.
> You could make the same arguments against morris dancing!
I am not denigrating morris dancing, but one could not deny that more people
in rural areas listen to anything from The Who to Destiny's Child than ever
take part in morris dancing.
> I've news for you pal. The traditions of the countryside and its
> traditions are still alive and well. You will still find the life
> surrounding the village hall goes on. People still stop and gossip to
> one another on their weekly visits to the market town. Harvest
> festivals still happen as do shooting parties. Horses are still
> ridden around the lanes and by-ways. The county show still is a
> significant event and so on and so on.
... and of course you all watch Sky TV, use the internet and listen to your
old Simon and Garfunkel albums.
OK, cheap shot, but it infuriates me when people claim that they are still
living "pure" rural lives, when it is obvious from what they consume and
take in from day to day that they are not.
> Will the urbanite ever be content before the complete sub-urbanisation
> of the countryside is complete? Does he yearn for a countryside that
> has become no more than an extension of his urban parks?
No - I love the countryside. I just don't like hunting. "The countryside"
does not equal "fox hunting".
> The foxhunting issue has nothing to do with modernisation or
> conservatism.
Tell that to the majority of hunting supporters, especially the more violent
demonstrators. Tell that to the hunting fanatics who barracked the 1999
Labour conference in Bournemouth, but held a rally at the 2000 Conservative
conference in the same venue which was more-or-less officially linked to the
Tory party, and at which William Hague made a rabble-rousing anti-Blair
speech. Tell that to the hunting fanatics who whipped up a campaign against
Jackie Ballard, the anti-hunting Lib Dem MP for Taunton, and succeeded in
getting her replaced by an obnoxiously right-wing Tory. Tell that to all
the genuine lords of the manor on whom the character in "Flambards" was
based.
> It's about freedom.
Except that hunt supporters tend to be the sort of people who would deny the
rest of us our freedoms to listen to what we want, watch what we want and
buy what we want in the countryside. They do not care ***one bit*** about
the freedoms of the majority of rural people who dislike hunting and don't
share their politics.
I'm doing this for your own sake, Mel. I really am.
Robin Carmody
> the country with adults NO PROBLEM at all. I know three people who
> have seven such dogs. It's a pure fallacy and exactly the same is said
> by the perverts who have the retired greyhounds shot. Yet we all KNOW
> greyhounds make lovely pets.
Indeed - we had my uncle's greyhound round here earlier today and he is a
wonderful dog. It should also be remembered here that those who hunted with
springer spaniels, English setters and the like always used to say that they
could never be kept as pets. It's safe to say that they have been proved
wrong.
FACE
<black...@ntlworld.com> in uk.politics.misc wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 10:19:39 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Hopefully not a twisted perverted world you adopt.
>
><snip - more bigoted small-mindedness in the same vein>
>
>You appear to be determined to make the huntsmens' point for them far
>more eloquently than they possibly can.
Additionally, he tips his hand in his choice of email address. One
does not choose names like that unless impressed by them and
identifying with them. In this case he shows that he is favourably
impressed by a repressive police state sanctioning summary executions
by it's agents. I would bet he is a kid who just loves those bloody
first shooter computer games.
FACE
Jonathan Bratt
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Thursday the prime minister was barracked by angry hunt supporters in
>Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural heritage"
They sure know how to think up a catchy slogan eh?
--
Jonathan Bratt
JudGeDreD
wrote:
I sympathize with her. I went the same way listening to your first few
lines.
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>The hunts will not
>stop hunting
Just watch.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>Do you support abortion on demand and homosexuality ?
>
>
--
Jonathan Bratt
Robert Henderson
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
Really? How many have you kept? RH
> Maybe when the
>government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
>Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
>with the cats ...
Obviously you know nothing about foxhounds. They are completely
unsuitable as pets because they have lived as pack animals and have not
been treated as pets. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
peter
<Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
I thought you would in order to be consistent with your world view.
This means you value the lives of vermin more than the unborn human and
you approve of sexual perversion as opposed to normal behaviour.
Another great post for the Countryside Alliance.
thanks
Steve Glynn
Me now utterly confused.
I might go shooting with a spaniel or a setter, but why on earth would I
want to hunt foxes with one?
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <kFbXrfBl...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>In article <e$ZB8UHya+S9Ew8$@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Do you support abortion on demand and homosexuality ?
>>>
>>>
>>Guess what? I do. Both.
>
>
>I thought you would in order to be consistent with your world view.
>This means you value the lives of vermin more than the unborn human and
>you approve of sexual perversion as opposed to normal behaviour.
I do not believe in ruining a woman's life with an unwanted child - I
don't think it would help the child otherwise anyway.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Marc Living
wrote:
>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
Where?
--
Marc Living (replace "bounceback" with "ntlworld" to reply)
The Rifleman
"Robin Carmody" I see clearly you know little or nothing of countryside
issues .
peter
<Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>In article <1SnbXPKP...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <kFbXrfBl...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>In article <e$ZB8UHya+S9Ew8$@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>Do you support abortion on demand and homosexuality ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Guess what? I do. Both.
>>
>>
>>I thought you would in order to be consistent with your world view.
>>This means you value the lives of vermin more than the unborn human and
>>you approve of sexual perversion as opposed to normal behaviour.
>
>I do not believe in ruining a woman's life with an unwanted child - I
>don't think it would help the child otherwise anyway.
your value of life speaks volumes for your philosophy -
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>It should also be remembered here that those who hunted with
>springer spaniels, English setters and the like always used to say that they
>could never be kept as pets.
Nobody has ever said that. You are making up your arguments as you go
along. Springers and setters - and terriers - hunt as a "one man and
his dog" combination: they do not live in or hunt as a pack.
It is the upbringing which determines whether they will make pets or
not. A foxhound brought up as a family pet, and they do exist, will
indeed be a pet - and it would suffer terribly if it was dumped into
the middle of a pack. Conversely, a hound brought up in a pack cannot
become a family pet.
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's about freedom.
>Except that hunt supporters tend to be the sort of people who would deny the
>rest of us our freedoms to listen to what we want, watch what we want and
>buy what we want in the countryside. They do not care ***one bit*** about
>the freedoms of the majority of rural people who dislike hunting and don't
>share their politics.
Well hold the front page. People care more about the liberties they
exercise than about those they don't. That is why governments find it
so easy to remove freedoms from everybody. That is why people in such
a society end up with fewer and fewer rights and liberties.
After all, why, reading your posts, should anybody be in the least bit
interested in preserving those freedoms and liberties which *you* hold
dear?
JudGeDreD
<black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:26:48 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
>
>Where?
In a field.
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <oUTEv5BE...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>In article <1SnbXPKP...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <kFbXrfBl...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>>In article <e$ZB8UHya+S9Ew8$@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>>>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>Do you support abortion on demand and homosexuality ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Guess what? I do. Both.
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought you would in order to be consistent with your world view.
>>>This means you value the lives of vermin more than the unborn human and
>>>you approve of sexual perversion as opposed to normal behaviour.
>>
>>I do not believe in ruining a woman's life with an unwanted child - I
>>don't think it would help the child otherwise anyway.
>
>
>your value of life speaks volumes for your philosophy -
I do not believe life begins with conception. A bundle of cells is
precisely that and no more. Once it does begin, I value it enormously.
You appear to think life is valued only when it conforms to your narrow
view of mystical morality.
--
Jonathan Bratt
peter
<Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>In article <Yz+APVLp...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <oUTEv5BE...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>In article <1SnbXPKP...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>In article <kFbXrfBl...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>>>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>>>In article <e$ZB8UHya+S9Ew8$@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>>>>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>Do you support abortion on demand and homosexuality ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Guess what? I do. Both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought you would in order to be consistent with your world view.
>>>>This means you value the lives of vermin more than the unborn human and
>>>>you approve of sexual perversion as opposed to normal behaviour.
>>>
>>>I do not believe in ruining a woman's life with an unwanted child - I
>>>don't think it would help the child otherwise anyway.
>>
>>
>>your value of life speaks volumes for your philosophy -
>
>I do not believe life begins with conception.
I do.
The primary fundamental quality of life is information. (the second and
third being matter and form ) As the DNA contains the information there
is no "more DNA" added at birth - it is all there albeit in cellular
format.
Do you believe the soul enters the body at the first breath? No. It
doesn't - because the response to music and voices is well established
in the womb.
> A bundle of cells is
>precisely that and no more.
You say that but you can't prove it. My comment above suggests
otherwise. Given sentience / personality begins prior to birth, when do
you think life begins to be "valid" for "keeping"? When precisely do
those "cells" become life?
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I do.
>
>The primary fundamental quality of life is information. (the second and
>third being matter and form ) As the DNA contains the information there
>is no "more DNA" added at birth - it is all there albeit in cellular
>format.
Yet there is no sentience. That is to me the fundamental quality of
life.
>
>Do you believe the soul enters the body at the first breath?
You know I do not believe in a soul. We are all merely accidental
collections of matter and electrical impulses.
> No. It
>doesn't - because the response to music and voices is well established
>in the womb.
>
>> A bundle of cells is
>>precisely that and no more.
>
>You say that but you can't prove it. My comment above suggests
>otherwise. Given sentience / personality begins prior to birth, when do
>you think life begins to be "valid" for "keeping"? When precisely do
>those "cells" become life?
When they are capable of sustaining independent life - with medical
assistance.
>
>
>>Once it does begin, I value it enormously.
>>You appear to think life is valued only when it conforms to your narrow
>>view of mystical morality.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Mark Holland
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Hunting is not "my culture". Your culture is what you choose it to be - it
>is what you do, what you consume, what you enjoy, what you take in etc etc.
>Ergo Shakira's "Whenever, Wherever" is part of my culture because I listen
>to it, and I think it's the best pop single of the year, but hunting isn't
>part of my culture, because I never take part in it and I don't like it at
>all.
And should your "culture" be worthy of anybody else's respect? I say
ban Lebanese/Colombian songstrels. After all it's not *MY* culture as
I don't listen to it. Ergo, by your reckoning, it's worthless.
peter
<Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>In article <wRxq3mNX...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <Y3Y4XDCq...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>I do not believe life begins with conception.
>>
>>I do.
>>
>>The primary fundamental quality of life is information. (the second and
>>third being matter and form ) As the DNA contains the information there
>>is no "more DNA" added at birth - it is all there albeit in cellular
>>format.
>
>Yet there is no sentience. That is to me the fundamental quality of
>life.
are one day old babies sentient?
>>
>>Do you believe the soul enters the body at the first breath?
>
>You know I do not believe in a soul. We are all merely accidental
>collections of matter and electrical impulses.
>
then explain design (without purpose) and explain beauty
>> No. It
>>doesn't - because the response to music and voices is well established
>>in the womb.
>>
>>> A bundle of cells is
>>>precisely that and no more.
>>
>>You say that but you can't prove it. My comment above suggests
>>otherwise. Given sentience / personality begins prior to birth, when do
>>you think life begins to be "valid" for "keeping"? When precisely do
>>those "cells" become life?
>
>When they are capable of sustaining independent life - with medical
>assistance.
That is a contradiction at best! The womb could be the medical
assistance.
>>
>>
>>>Once it does begin, I value it enormously.
>>>You appear to think life is valued only when it conforms to your narrow
>>>view of mystical morality.
>
--
peter
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <cGcpbmC5...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>In article <wRxq3mNX...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
>><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <Y3Y4XDCq...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>>I do not believe life begins with conception.
>>>
>>>I do.
>>>
>>>The primary fundamental quality of life is information. (the second and
>>>third being matter and form ) As the DNA contains the information there
>>>is no "more DNA" added at birth - it is all there albeit in cellular
>>>format.
>>
>>Yet there is no sentience. That is to me the fundamental quality of
>>life.
>
>are one day old babies sentient?
No but they have the capability, as does any foetus I know. But a
compulsory pregnancy helps no-one. I think any abortion is sad - I speak
as an adopted child - but I do not think it is a good idea to make a
woman carry a child if she does not wish to do so.
>
>>>
>>>Do you believe the soul enters the body at the first breath?
>>
>>You know I do not believe in a soul. We are all merely accidental
>>collections of matter and electrical impulses.
>>
>
>then explain design (without purpose) and explain beauty
Design is a misunderstood aspect of evolution. Beauty similarly so.
>
>
>>> No. It
>>>doesn't - because the response to music and voices is well established
>>>in the womb.
>>>
>>>> A bundle of cells is
>>>>precisely that and no more.
>>>
>>>You say that but you can't prove it. My comment above suggests
>>>otherwise. Given sentience / personality begins prior to birth, when do
>>>you think life begins to be "valid" for "keeping"? When precisely do
>>>those "cells" become life?
>>
>
>>When they are capable of sustaining independent life - with medical
>>assistance.
>
>That is a contradiction at best! The womb could be the medical
>assistance.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Once it does begin, I value it enormously.
>>>>You appear to think life is valued only when it conforms to your narrow
>>>>view of mystical morality.
>>
>
--
Jonathan Bratt
alanG
<black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:26:48 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
>
>Where?
Here in Durham the farms have very little fox trouble (or rabbit
trouble either). Further up the dales where there *is* a hunt , the
rabbit population is enormous.
I lived with a sheep farm out the back for almost 10 years and have
never seen a fox attack lambs. I know they do sometimes attack
livestock but from talks with local farm people it is very rare in
this area. When it does happen the fox usually gets shot.
--
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
Marc Living
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:31:43 +0100, Marc Living
><black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:26:48 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>>wrote:
>>>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
>>Where?
>In a field.
Where?
Robin Carmody
news:oi5okucl2hpvkfapd...@4ax.com...
>
> After all, why, reading your posts, should anybody be in the least bit
> interested in preserving those freedoms and liberties which *you* hold
> dear?
Because they are liberals. It is not my fault that you are not a liberal.
JudGeDreD
<black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 19:08:01 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:31:43 +0100, Marc Living
>><black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:26:48 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
>
>>>Where?
>
>>In a field.
>
>Where?
There!
Robin Carmody
news:3d4c334f...@news.btinternet.com...
>
> And should your "culture" be worthy of anybody else's respect?
If we are to prolong this tedious argument, Shakira has hit number one
worldwide. Ergo people like her records (though as it happens I can't stand
her current single, it was the first one I loved).
I say
> ban Lebanese/Colombian songstrels. After all it's not *MY* culture as
> I don't listen to it. Ergo, by your reckoning, it's worthless.
I have no objection to other country pursuits because I do not think they
are cruel. I *do* think hunting is cruel.
Robin Carmody
news:ZKCo4ZBG$$S9E...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
> In article <eYZx14Ew...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
> <Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
> >The hunts will not
> >stop hunting
>
> Just watch.
For all their faults, most foxhunters are law-abiding people.
Robin Carmody
news:aih4sj$g5d$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Robin Carmody" I see clearly you know little or nothing of countryside
> issues .
Nor does Robert Henderson of NW1 :).
Robin Carmody
> In article <aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >Wigton, Cumbria, with banners like "Urban ignorance destroys rural
heritage"
>
> They sure know how to think up a catchy slogan eh?
"SAVE THE HUNT
BLAIR IS A C***"
I think the extremists will be on to that one soon ...
Robin Carmody
news:YLvMOuALQ$S9E...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aifgst$sbu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >One thing, though - I'm rather fond of foxhounds as pets.
>
> Really? How many have you kept? RH
None so far. However I am a dog owner.
> > Maybe when the
> >government finally shows its guts on this issue, I will adopt one of the
> >Cattistock Hunt's redundant foxhounds. Just have to hope it will get on
> >with the cats ...
>
> Obviously you know nothing about foxhounds. They are completely
> unsuitable as pets because they have lived as pack animals and have not
> been treated as pets. RH
That's what they used to say about greyhounds ...
Robin Carmody
news:aih2ot$13vf45$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Me now utterly confused.
>
> I might go shooting with a spaniel or a setter, but why on earth would I
> want to hunt foxes with one?
My point was that these breeds were considered unsuitable as pets when they
were predominately used as working dogs.
Robin Carmody
>
> It is the upbringing which determines whether they will make pets or
> not. A foxhound brought up as a family pet, and they do exist, will
> indeed be a pet - and it would suffer terribly if it was dumped into
> the middle of a pack. Conversely, a hound brought up in a pack cannot
> become a family pet.
Thankfully you concede that foxhounds *can* be converted into pets if they
are brought up as such. If hunting is banned, the transition of foxhounds
from working dogs into pets will doubtless (happily) accelerate, just as it
has already done with any number of gundog breeds and several of the hound
breeds.
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:oi5okucl2hpvkfapd...@4ax.com...
>> After all, why, reading your posts, should anybody be in the least bit
>> interested in preserving those freedoms and liberties which *you* hold
>> dear?
>Because they are liberals. It is not my fault that you are not a liberal.
Project away.
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:ir5okus97rpsbck3i...@4ax.com...
>> It is the upbringing which determines whether they will make pets or
>> not. A foxhound brought up as a family pet, and they do exist, will
>> indeed be a pet - and it would suffer terribly if it was dumped into
>> the middle of a pack. Conversely, a hound brought up in a pack cannot
>> become a family pet.
>Thankfully you concede that foxhounds *can* be converted into pets if they
>are brought up as such.
If they are brought up as such, "conversion" doesn't enter into it.
> If hunting is banned, the transition of foxhounds
>from working dogs into pets will doubtless (happily) accelerate, just as it
>has already done with any number of gundog breeds and several of the hound
>breeds.
But not wrt the thousands of hounds alive at the time of any ban,
which will all have to be put down. (Except, possibly, any newly
weaned puppies.)
Are you volunteering to massacre them?
Marc Living
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 23:35:36 +0100, Marc Living
><black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 19:08:01 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:31:43 +0100, Marc Living
>>><black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:26:48 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
>>>>Where?
>>>In a field.
>>Where?
>There!
I get the picture.
Robin Carmody
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:47:21 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
> >news:oi5okucl2hpvkfapd...@4ax.com...
>
> >> After all, why, reading your posts, should anybody be in the least bit
> >> interested in preserving those freedoms and liberties which *you* hold
> >> dear?
>
> >Because they are liberals. It is not my fault that you are not a
liberal.
>
> Project away.
But you are quite obviously not a liberal, Marc. I am.
Robin Carmody
>
> But not wrt the thousands of hounds alive at the time of any ban,
> which will all have to be put down.
I simply do not believe that is true.
(Except, possibly, any newly
> weaned puppies.)
I will take on any such puppy as a pet.
> Are you volunteering to massacre them?
No, because foxhounds can be put to other uses.
peter
Beauty is subjective and makes not one jot of impact to evolution. Look
at the peacock's feathers. Blow your mind at the complexity.
>>
>>>> No. It
>>>>doesn't - because the response to music and voices is well established
>>>>in the womb.
>>>>
>>>>> A bundle of cells is
>>>>>precisely that and no more.
>>>>
>>>>You say that but you can't prove it. My comment above suggests
>>>>otherwise. Given sentience / personality begins prior to birth, when do
>>>>you think life begins to be "valid" for "keeping"? When precisely do
>>>>those "cells" become life?
>>>
>>
>>>When they are capable of sustaining independent life - with medical
>>>assistance.
>>
>>That is a contradiction at best! The womb could be the medical
>>assistance.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Once it does begin, I value it enormously.
>>>>>You appear to think life is valued only when it conforms to your narrow
>>>>>view of mystical morality.
>>>
>>
>
--
peter
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:6fpoku4iqtlr58t3c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:47:21 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
>> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>> >news:oi5okucl2hpvkfapd...@4ax.com...
>> >> After all, why, reading your posts, should anybody be in the least bit
>> >> interested in preserving those freedoms and liberties which *you* hold
>> >> dear?
>> >Because they are liberals. It is not my fault that you are not a
>liberal.
>> Project away.
>But you are quite obviously not a liberal, Marc.
Well obviously. I believe in maintaining the ancient rights and
liberties of Englishmen, and rail against the steady and inexorable
encroachments by the state into those liberties. That obviously makes
me a totalitarian. Whilst you ...
> I am.
... appear more concerned to take other peoples liberties away from
them, and to force those people into some sort of collective mould
marked "Robin Carmody's view of what constitutes acceptable and
unacceptable conduct". That obviously makes you a liberal.
All the above, of course, only in some parallel universe (or America)
where the meaning of the word "liberal" has changed from "a person who
believes in the maximum possible individual liberty, and the minimum
possible state interference" to "a net-curtain-twitching busy-body
nosy-parker fuss-budget who wishes to force everybody to behave in a
way which pleases him".
Mark Holland
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Mark Holland <?@?.???> wrote in message
>news:3d4c334f...@news.btinternet.com...
>>
>> And should your "culture" be worthy of anybody else's respect?
>
>If we are to prolong this tedious argument,
It appears so.
>Shakira has hit number one
>worldwide. Ergo people like her records (though as it happens I can't stand
>her current single, it was the first one I loved).
She did. You like it lots of people like it therefore, by your
reckoning, it's worthy of some lofty cultural status. I think it will
be a sad day when a record's popularity defines it's merit mind
As it happens you don't like hunting, but you must admit that some do
or see it as a necessary evil, it's not worth protecting. You self
centered git.
Mark Holland
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But you are quite obviously not a liberal, Marc. I am.
>--
Marc is way more liberal than you could even hope to be.
Paul Hyett
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> typed this -
>
>I have news for Mr Curmudgeon of Portland. The county of Dorsetshire has
>more hunts per acre than anywhere else in the UK. The hunts will not
>stop hunting despite the best effort of the fascists like you to import
>your childlike understanding of human society.
Are you saying they'd defy any future ban?
>
>You extol the virtues of multiculturalism whilst attacking the very
>culture which is yours - like it or not.
Culture evolves - over the centuries many traditions have faded away due
to changes of attitude in society.
> Stalin would have made good
>use of you - have you applied to New Labour for a job in the PR
>department? That's PR as in Propaganda.
Is it OK for Tories to destroy traditional occupations like mining and
heavy manufacturing on economic grounds, but to for Labour to do so on
moral grounds?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Paul Hyett
Living <black...@bounceback.com> typed this -
>
>Well hold the front page. People care more about the liberties they
>exercise than about those they don't. That is why governments find it
>so easy to remove freedoms from everybody. That is why people in such
>a society end up with fewer and fewer rights and liberties.
>
>After all, why, reading your posts, should anybody be in the least bit
>interested in preserving those freedoms and liberties which *you* hold
>dear?
>
line?
Paul Hyett
>
Hi Stephen.
>
>Foxhounds that have been trained to hunt are not suitable as pets. If
>hunting is banned they will all be shot.
Aren't they shot *anyway* when they get too old to hunt?
sean
<< Snip self-righteous fanaticism>>
You call yourself a liberal yet you are desperate to ban an activity
that does no harm to you or anyone else, simply because hunters have
different cultural values to you.
This is what Aidan Rankin describes as "authoritarian liberalism".
Stephen Horgan
"JudGeDreD" <judg...@rr.net> wrote in message
news:3d6f5de8...@news.rr.mex.ecoterminal.net...
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Hayek
Steve Glynn
You're providing very little evidence of your liberal attitudes, though.
Your objections to hunting, for example, seem to be based as much on your
dislike of a stereotype of 'a hunter' every bit as facile as some of the
stereotypes of Muslims that get trotted out here.
You don't like hunting. Fair enough. No one's asking you to hunt if you
don't want to. If you want to make a case against it based on cruelty to
animals, then fair enough again, though you might find it more difficult
than you imagine to sustain the argument that hunting is so much a more
cruel way of killing foxes than any of the other options that it should be
criminalised (you're going to have to explain where you think the Burns
(?Sp) got it wrong, for one thing).
However, your main objection to hunting in particular and the 'rural lobby'
in general seems to be as much about what you take to be people's political
and social attitudes as anything else, and, quite simply, your
preconceptions don't have much basis in any reality I've ever observed.
How many people who hunt or shoot do you actually know, and how do you
manage to deduce their political views from the fact they hunt, or their
musical taste, or their sexual orientation or any other thing about them?
Such a feat is certainly beyond my abilities, but I suppose I'd feel less
confused if I didn't actually know several people who hunt or shoot or
whatever, so I wouldn't be constrained by inconvenient facts that got in the
way of my prejudices.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02
Steve Glynn
>
>
If you say so, though it's news to me that people ever thought gun-dogs
couldn't also be kept as pets. But the point is not the breed of dog but
the conditions which it's used to.
While I'm sure that if someone gave you a fox-hound puppy as a present it
would make the most delightful pet and companion, I really doubt you'd thank
me if I presented you with a fox-hound that was a few years old and had
spent its life in kennels.
Steve Glynn
You're missing the point, though. Clearly, cats can be kept as pets.
However, you'd be very hard put to domesticate an 'outdoor' or feral cat
(though you'd have no difficulty with domesticating one of her kittens,
assuming you could get it off her without losing an eye).
Marc Living
You cross the line when you interfere with the rights and liberties of
another.
peter
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> stated: -
>On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as peter
><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> typed this -
>>
>>I have news for Mr Curmudgeon of Portland. The county of Dorsetshire has
>>more hunts per acre than anywhere else in the UK. The hunts will not
>>stop hunting despite the best effort of the fascists like you to import
>>your childlike understanding of human society.
>
>Are you saying they'd defy any future ban?
yes - many will if there is a ban - but there won't be a ban.
>>
>>You extol the virtues of multiculturalism whilst attacking the very
>>culture which is yours - like it or not.
>
>Culture evolves - over the centuries many traditions have faded away due
>to changes of attitude in society.
>
I would say it could also be seen as descent into chaos.
2nd law of thermodynamics etc.
>> Stalin would have made good
>>use of you - have you applied to New Labour for a job in the PR
>>department? That's PR as in Propaganda.
>
>Is it OK for Tories to destroy traditional occupations like mining and
>heavy manufacturing on economic grounds,
no
> but to for Labour to do so on
>moral grounds?
no - Labour by definition does not understand morality -
but having said that nor do most politicians
--
peter
peter
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> stated: -
refer to the Maker's Instructions.
--
peter
Mel Rowing
> Mel Rowing <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:e1b1d184.02080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > One wonders how without the strongest appeal to the extended
> > immagination, how this article can have any real relevence to the
> > underlying issue.
>
> It is all in the metaphors.
Shouldn't :>) follow this?
You are after all taking the piss.
> > Great revelation! The countryside as modernised! Sound the trumpets!
> >
> > Do you know we now have electricity. Alleluia!
> >
> > I do believe up the road they've installed a flush toilet somewhere!
> >
> > What arrant nonesense! The countryside has modernised and so the
> > huntsmen should perhaps realise that their day has come and quietly
> > fade into history.
>
> I was simply making the point that the hunting community have *always*
> resented the fact that new technological developments take place in the
> countryside, as well as in the urban areas.
Rubbish. There is no 'hunting community' as such. The hunting
fraternity come for many walks of life including business and industry
though the nature of the activity is such that it holds more appeal to
rural folk. As such huntfolk and followers belong to various
communities and many involve themselves deeply within them.
> "Flambards" seems to be a pretty accurate picture of life in that social class
> in the early 20th Century - a conflict between the old protectionist
> establishment and a new generation who were developing such things as
> aeroplanes, which were very new technology at the time. This conflict is
> still going on.
Flambards is fiction. As such is is an indivudual's perspective of a
situation at a particular point in time. How can this have any
relevence to a diverse group of people who come together from time to
time to engage in a particular activity.
Even if it were true that huntsmen are an old fashioned lot in their
attitudes, so what?
> > You could make the same arguments against morris dancing!
>
> I am not denigrating morris dancing, but one could not deny that more people
> in rural areas listen to anything from The Who to Destiny's Child than ever
> take part in morris dancing.
Again, so what? Are you implying that those who engage in morris
dancing do not engage in these other activities?
> > I've news for you pal. The traditions of the countryside and its
> > traditions are still alive and well. You will still find the life
> > surrounding the village hall goes on. People still stop and gossip to
> > one another on their weekly visits to the market town. Harvest
> > festivals still happen as do shooting parties. Horses are still
> > ridden around the lanes and by-ways. The county show still is a
> > significant event and so on and so on.
>
> ... and of course you all watch Sky TV, use the internet and listen to your
> old Simon and Garfunkel albums.
Of course we do. We enjoy these also. So what?
> OK, cheap shot, but it infuriates me when people claim that they are still
> living "pure" rural lives, when it is obvious from what they consume and
> take in from day to day that they are not.
Then you must be pretty easily infuriated. Perhaps if you got on with
your own life and concerned yourself less with trying to proscribe the
life of others you might have a less stressful time. Look into a
mirror rather than a telescope. (It's all in the metaphors!)
What is a pure rural lifestyle anyway? I've never come across one. I
live in the country out of choice. I like it here. I prefer the
people, the more relaxed pace of life and the peace. Because I live
here certain social opportunities are available to me that are more
difficult to find in an urban setting. Some of these goings on have
happened for years. That's called tradition. Those who indulge are
not required to go down to the parish pump everytime they want a
drink.
> > Will the urbanite ever be content before the complete sub-urbanisation
> > of the countryside is complete? Does he yearn for a countryside that
> > has become no more than an extension of his urban parks?
>
> No - I love the countryside. I just don't like hunting. "The countryside"
> does not equal "fox hunting".
I don't think you love the countryside at all. You might have some
affinity with your own blinkered impression as to what the countryside
and country life ought to be.
You don't like hunting. That's the crux of this and nothing to do
with either rural life or modernity so why not cut the crap and say
so.
The solution of your problem is simple. Have nothing to do with it.
I don't like golf and so I don't play. However, I would be the last
person to advocate its abolition or denigrate those who participate.
It is true that the countryside does not equate to foxhunting. There
is much much more that goes on. Further I think you will find that
those who hunt to be more than active in other areas of country life
also. Nonetheless it is a fact that hunting features in country life
in many areas and why shouldn't it?
> > The foxhunting issue has nothing to do with modernisation or
> > conservatism.
>
> Tell that to the majority of hunting supporters, especially the more violent
> demonstrators.
I well remeber the countryside march on Westminster when the
protestors were said by some commnetators to have left Hyde Park in a
more tidy state than they found it!
> Tell that to the hunting fanatics who barracked the 1999
> Labour conference in Bournemouth, but held a rally at the 2000 Conservative
> conference in the same venue which was more-or-less officially linked to the
> Tory party, and at which William Hague made a rabble-rousing anti-Blair
> speech.
So the hunt saboteurs are pillars of righteousness are they? I know
that two wrongs don't make a right but we have a least one reason to
be grateful to them.
They have taught us the futility of defending our freedoms through
reason, logic and debate. It is largely because they have acted as
they have over the years the we are in the position that we now find
ourselves in.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So be it.
> Tell that to the hunting fanatics who whipped up a campaign against
> Jackie Ballard, the anti-hunting Lib Dem MP for Taunton, and succeeded in
> getting her replaced by an obnoxiously right-wing Tory.
Clearly the good folk of Taunton didn't agree with you.
Perhaps some "right wing Toryism" is becoming more attractive than
wishy washy Liberal Democracy. That's what elections are for.
> Tell that to all the genuine lords of the manor on whom the character
> in "Flambards" was based.
You really are going to have to try to get out of the Flambards
fetish. It seem most unhealthy. Try to differentiate between fact
and fiction.
> > It's about freedom.
>
> Except that hunt supporters tend to be the sort of people who would deny the
> rest of us our freedoms to listen to what we want, watch what we want and
> buy what we want in the countryside.
Who do you possibly imagine here cares about what you listen to,want
or buy in the countryside. All we ask is to be left alone to live our
lives as we see fit.
> They do not care ***one bit*** about
> the freedoms of the majority of rural people who dislike hunting and don't
> share their politics.
Rural people who dislike hunting have the same freedom as regards
hunting as I have precribed for you. There exists the view that is is
nobody else's business how people choose to pass their leisure hours
at their own expense.
As regards politics, New Labour really does fall upon stony ground
here except in one or two isolated wards in the market towns where
they are tolerated and accepted.
Blair is about as popular here as a pork pie in a synagogue which is
why he and his entourage care not a jot for us or about us. Our
suburbanisation is well underway.
Our problem is that we are a minority. As such we are under
represented in the corridors of power and are wide open to abuse,
neglect and urban domination.
> I'm doing this for your own sake, Mel. I really am.
You really are a 24 carat pillock aren't you? When my life needs the
likes of you to preserve or improve it let me know. As my final act
of defiance, I shall then end it.
Mel Rowing
JudGeDreD
<ste...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"JudGeDreD" <judg...@rr.net> wrote in message
>news:3d6f5de8...@news.rr.mex.ecoterminal.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 23:35:36 +0100, Marc Living
>> <black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 19:08:01 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:31:43 +0100, Marc Living
>> >><black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:26:48 +0100, JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>I have farmed with chickens and lambs and NEVER had fox trouble.
>> >
>> >>>Where?
>> >
>> >>In a field.
>> >
>> >Where?
>>
>> There!
>Do you think that lying improves your argument?
Do you think being a prik improves yours?
JudgeDred Kingdom cum.
Mark Holland
You've hit the nail squarely on the head there I reckon.
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:fhpokuo2cjlbi1jrp...@4ax.com...
>> But not wrt the thousands of hounds alive at the time of any ban,
>> which will all have to be put down.
>I simply do not believe that is true.
Your lack of belief hasn;t the slightest effect on the reality of the
situation.
> (Except, possibly, any newly
>> weaned puppies.)
>I will take on any such puppy as a pet.
>> Are you volunteering to massacre them?
>No, because foxhounds can be put to other uses.
Oh? What other uses did you have in mind?
Robin Carmody
news:2a465685.02080...@posting.google.com...
>
> This is what Aidan Rankin describes as "authoritarian liberalism".
Rankin is a dangerous cultural segregationist on the fringes of the dubious
International Third Position. When I referred to the cultural values of
those who regard the countryside as a holy object to be kept free from
modernism, Rankin was one of those I had in mind.
alanG
<black...@bounceback.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 02:18:04 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
><ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I will take on any such puppy as a pet.
>
>>> Are you volunteering to massacre them?
>
>>No, because foxhounds can be put to other uses.
>
>Oh? What other uses did you have in mind?
I believe they make good bedside rugs :)
Alan G
Robin Carmody
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 02:18:04 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> Are you volunteering to massacre them?
>
> >No, because foxhounds can be put to other uses.
>
> Oh? What other uses did you have in mind?
They could be used as sniffer dogs, possibly?
Robin Carmody
news:AGNKnaHV...@activist.demon.co.uk...
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as
> Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.co.uk> typed this -
> >
> Hi Stephen.
> >
> >Foxhounds that have been trained to hunt are not suitable as pets. If
> >hunting is banned they will all be shot.
>
> Aren't they shot *anyway* when they get too old to hunt?
They were in "Flambards" (next episode on UK Drama 9pm tonight), as were
horses.
Robin Carmody
>
> Well obviously. I believe in maintaining the ancient rights and
> liberties of Englishmen,
But you couldn't care less about new rights and liberties. Nor could most
people who make that argument, in my experience.
Robin Carmody
He only cares about traditional freedoms. He clearly couldn't care less
about modern freedoms.
Robin Carmody
>
> You cross the line when you interfere with the rights and liberties of
> another.
Do you extend that to the right to murder, or the liberty to sexually abuse
a child?
FACE
uk.politics.misc wrote:
And is this also what is known as an 'officious bystander'?
FACE
****
"The liberal doctrines, which evolved in the late 18th century, were
an outgrowth of John Locke's theories, reflecting
his faith in man's rational nature and urging limits on governmental
power"
Francis Burton
Robin Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>For all their faults, most foxhunters are law-abiding people.
And generally pleasant, friendly and normal-seeming,
despite what they get up to in their leisure time!
Francis
JudGeDreD
wrote:
I guess the same is said of many pedophiles.
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:6mtpku0ektj900kvn...@4ax.com...
>> Well obviously. I believe in maintaining the ancient rights and
>> liberties of Englishmen,
>But you couldn't care less about new rights and liberties. Nor could most
>people who make that argument, in my experience.
To which "new rights and liberties" do you refer?
Marc Living
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:kd6qkug4e7540pte1...@4ax.com...
>> You cross the line when you interfere with the rights and liberties of
>> another.
>Do you extend that to the right to murder, or the liberty to sexually abuse
>a child?
Which bit of the phrase "when you interfere with the rights and
liberties of another" are you having difficulty understanding?
alanG
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:6mtpku0ektj900kvn...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Well obviously. I believe in maintaining the ancient rights and
>> liberties of Englishmen,
>
>But you couldn't care less about new rights and liberties. Nor could most
>people who make that argument, in my experience.
What new rights and liberties are you proposing?
--
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
alanG
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>news:kd6qkug4e7540pte1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You cross the line when you interfere with the rights and liberties of
>> another.
>
>Do you extend that to the right to murder, or the liberty to sexually abuse
>a child?
Do you feel justified in assaulting someone going about his legal
business?
asif
Yes, obvioulsy they are one and the same thing. Anyone who abuses animals,
must be a pedo, right?
Are you a vegan?
And hunt saboteurs who injure horses? Pedos!
Females who hunt - pedos!
String 'em up! If you dont like it go back to Russia!!!
Aldabra Stoddart
sean <fear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You call yourself a liberal yet you are desperate to ban an activity
>that does no harm to you or anyone else, simply because hunters have
>different cultural values to you.
Surely the entire question is over whether the harm done to *the fox*
is ethically relevant? Nobody has a problem with them drag hunting,
after all. And that would provide continued employment and do away
with the need for mass culling of hounds.
--
Aldabra Stoddart, St John's and H.P.S., Cambridge.
She can't be convicted; she's earned her degree.
And the most she will do is throw shadows at you...
JudGeDreD
wrote:
>
>JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net> wrote in message
>news:3d569ae1...@news.rr.mex.ecoterminal.net...
>> On 4 Aug 2002 07:10:37 -0600, fbu...@nyx10.nyx.net (Francis Burton)
>>
>> I guess the same is said of many pedophiles.
>
>Yes, obvioulsy they are one and the same thing.
No, two distinct peoples. Quiet often one will also partake in the
other though.
> Anyone who abuses animals,
>must be a pedo, right?
No. But often they do.
>Are you a vegan?
Are you from Mars?
>And hunt saboteurs who injure horses? Pedos!
No.
>Females who hunt - pedos!
No.
>String 'em up!
Best thing for them I agree.
> If you dont like it go back to Russia!!!
Only if you pay the fare.
Robin Carmody
news:e1b1d184.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<aigtgj$qt1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> > resented the fact that new technological developments take place in the
> > countryside, as well as in the urban areas.
>
> Rubbish. There is no 'hunting community' as such.
Tell that to the Countryside Alliance.
The hunting
> fraternity come for many walks of life including business and industry
In which case they are destroying the way of life they supposedly want to
preserve.
> Flambards is fiction. As such is is an indivudual's perspective of a
> situation at a particular point in time.
K.M. Peyton is a more inspired and talented individual than you are, Mel.
As such I trust her perspective better.
How can this have any
> relevence to a diverse group of people who come together from time to
> time to engage in a particular activity.
It portrays the general attitudes of the hunting fraternity, throughout
history.
> Even if it were true that huntsmen are an old fashioned lot in their
> attitudes, so what?
It means that they want to keep modern activities out of the countryside.
That is, in my opinion, an attitude to worry about.
> > > You could make the same arguments against morris dancing!
> >
> > I am not denigrating morris dancing, but one could not deny that more
people
> > in rural areas listen to anything from The Who to Destiny's Child than
ever
> > take part in morris dancing.
>
> Again, so what? Are you implying that those who engage in morris
> dancing do not engage in these other activities?
Misty-eyed romantics like you imply that they do not.
> > ... and of course you all watch Sky TV, use the internet and listen to
your
> > old Simon and Garfunkel albums.
>
> Of course we do. We enjoy these also. So what?
You are therefore helping to destroy the way of life you supposedly want to
preserve.
> > OK, cheap shot, but it infuriates me when people claim that they are
still
> > living "pure" rural lives, when it is obvious from what they consume and
> > take in from day to day that they are not.
>
> Then you must be pretty easily infuriated. Perhaps if you got on with
> your own life and concerned yourself less with trying to proscribe the
> life of others you might have a less stressful time. Look into a
> mirror rather than a telescope. (It's all in the metaphors!)
>
> What is a pure rural lifestyle anyway?
I share the Third Positionist view, which is roughly that a "pure rural
lifestyle" is a non-capitalist one.
I've never come across one. I
> live in the country out of choice. I like it here. I prefer the
> people, the more relaxed pace of life
Which you help to destroy through being a capitalist. In the 50s and 60s
people like you would have been anti-American, because they rightly
recognised that the US influence was the single biggest force destroying
your ideal way of life. Now people like you want to have your cake and eat
it - you want to live a traditional rural life while still being consumers
of the unregulated free market. This is how you tie yourself up in
ideological and cultural knots.
and the peace. Because I live
> here certain social opportunities are available to me that are more
> difficult to find in an urban setting. Some of these goings on have
> happened for years. That's called tradition. Those who indulge are
> not required to go down to the parish pump everytime they want a
> drink.
More wriggling, I see.
> I don't think you love the countryside at all. You might have some
> affinity with your own blinkered impression as to what the countryside
> and country life ought to be.
No, I simply find two-faced hypocrites like you infuriating and unbearable.
> You don't like hunting. That's the crux of this and nothing to do
> with either rural life or modernity so why not cut the crap and say
> so.
I think hunting is cruel, yes.
> The solution of your problem is simple. Have nothing to do with it.
I choose to have nothing to do with it - however I would still be delighted
to see it banned.
> Perhaps some "right wing Toryism" is becoming more attractive than
> wishy washy Liberal Democracy. That's what elections are for.
I do not want to interfere with the results of elections - however I am
naturally sad when the Tories win a seat from Labour or the Lib Dems,
because I am on the political centre-left.
> > Tell that to all the genuine lords of the manor on whom the character
> > in "Flambards" was based.
>
> You really are going to have to try to get out of the Flambards
> fetish. It seem most unhealthy. Try to differentiate between fact
> and fiction.
Flambards is historically authoritative and evocative fiction. Have you
ever actually seen it, or read the books?
> > > It's about freedom.
> >
> > Except that hunt supporters tend to be the sort of people who would deny
the
> > rest of us our freedoms to listen to what we want, watch what we want
and
> > buy what we want in the countryside.
>
> Who do you possibly imagine here cares about what you listen to,want
> or buy in the countryside.
My experience has taught me that the hunting community, on the whole, would
prefer the countryside trapped in the past.
All we ask is to be left alone to live our
> lives as we see fit.
You can still live a country life, even if you simultaneously destroy it
with your free-market activities. There are many, many pursuits you and
your friends enjoy which would not be affected if hunting is banned.
> > They do not care ***one bit*** about
> > the freedoms of the majority of rural people who dislike hunting and
don't
> > share their politics.
>
> Rural people who dislike hunting have the same freedom as regards
> hunting as I have precribed for you. There exists the view that is is
> nobody else's business how people choose to pass their leisure hours
> at their own expense.
I'll stop opposing hunting when the hunt fraternity stop opposing hip-hop as
an "alien cultural invasion" (and they do, oh they do). Fair's fair.
> As regards politics, New Labour really does fall upon stony ground
> here except in one or two isolated wards in the market towns where
> they are tolerated and accepted.
>
> Blair is about as popular here as a pork pie in a synagogue which is
> why he and his entourage care not a jot for us or about us.
Ditto with Thatcher in the Labour heartlands in the 80s. Would you
therefore consider her government to be illegitimate? No party can be
popular throughout the country.
Our
> suburbanisation is well underway.
Yes, because of people like you who play by the rules of the free market.
> Our problem is that we are a minority. As such we are under
> represented in the corridors of power and are wide open to abuse,
> neglect and urban domination.
As were urban working-class people in the 1980s.
--
Robiun Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Robin Carmody
news:3kJ76oY1...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk...
> In article <BmbKPDHP...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> stated: -
>
> >
> >heavy manufacturing on economic grounds,
>
> no
But did you criticise them over this at the time, Peter?
Robin Carmody
news:hZB*nO...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> Surely the entire question is over whether the harm done to *the fox*
> is ethically relevant? Nobody has a problem with them drag hunting,
> after all. And that would provide continued employment and do away
> with the need for mass culling of hounds.
Very true.
Robin Carmody
>
> Which bit of the phrase "when you interfere with the rights and
> liberties of another" are you having difficulty understanding?
The vagueness of it. You have to be more specific about *which* rights and
liberties you mean, or you will be misunderstood.
Robin Carmody
news:ma8rkusg3p3aiikoc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 20:24:04 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
> >news:kd6qkug4e7540pte1...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> You cross the line when you interfere with the rights and liberties of
> >> another.
> >
> >Do you extend that to the right to murder, or the liberty to sexually
abuse
> >a child?
>
> Do you feel justified in assaulting someone going about his legal
> business?
No, just testing Marc's absurd vagueness.