Re: Another letter I agree with....
(o)(o)
>Dear Sir
>
>Charity; Give or Take?
>
>I was shocked to learn from charity data that the Woodland Trust
>spends 46.63% on its voluntary income on fundraising activities, which
>when compared to the Salvation Army's 2.1% and the National Trust's
>4.9% seems to be exorbitantly high. Whilst this information is in the
>public domain, it is probably not accessed by many people who
>contribute to charities.
>
>It is also interesting that the Woodland Trust CEO earns around
>£70,000 a year and oversees 236 employees whilst the Salvation Army
>CEO earns less than £15,000 and oversees over 3000 employees.
>
>Should it not be incumbent upon charities to publish this information
>in their promotional literature so that potential contributors could
>make an informed decision about which charities are more deserving and
>what they spend on their charitable objectives?
>
>
>Yours faithfully
>
>
RSPB are a similar rip off. I donated my money to protect birds, but
found they spend in excess of £7million per annum on advertising, and
a CEO who rakes in over £100k per annum! So much for charity.
Ken Ward
"(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2epcr298dn3e160hr...@4ax.com...
>
> RSPB are a similar rip off. I donated my money to protect birds, but
> found they spend in excess of £7million per annum on advertising, and
> a CEO who rakes in over £100k per annum! So much for charity.
Aren't they the ones who had "Ruddy Duck" culled?
KW
(o)(o)
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:35:49 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Dear Sir
>>
>>Charity; Give or Take?
>>
>>I was shocked to learn from charity data that the Woodland Trust
>>spends 46.63% on its voluntary income on fundraising activities, which
>>when compared to the Salvation Army's 2.1% and the National Trust's
>>4.9% seems to be exorbitantly high. Whilst this information is in the
>>public domain, it is probably not accessed by many people who
>>contribute to charities.
>>
>>It is also interesting that the Woodland Trust CEO earns around
>>£70,000 a year and oversees 236 employees whilst the Salvation Army
>>CEO earns less than £15,000 and oversees over 3000 employees.
>>
>>Should it not be incumbent upon charities to publish this information
>>in their promotional literature so that potential contributors could
>>make an informed decision about which charities are more deserving and
>>what they spend on their charitable objectives?
>>
>>
>>Yours faithfully
>>
>>
>
>> RSPB are a similar rip off. I donated my money to protect birds, but
>> found they spend in excess of £7million per annum on advertising, and
>> a CEO who rakes in over £100k per annum! So much for charity.
>
>Aren't they the ones who had "Ruddy Duck" culled?
Ruddy ducks, the rare black rat, hedgehogs in the Hebrides the list
goes on and on.
Keith (Dorset)
How can we take you seriously?
Unfortunately you ruin any arguments before you've begun.
so, it's: ... Message... Block Sender... done
Cheers,
Keith
"(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2epcr298dn3e160hr...@4ax.com...
Alan Holmes
"Keith (Dorset)" <kvpd1NO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:wISdnTumZdnfGivY...@bt.com...
> Dear (o)(o)
>
> How can we take you seriously?
>
> Unfortunately you ruin any arguments before you've begun.
>
> so, it's: ... Message... Block Sender... done
>
> Cheers,
>
> Keith
So, why crosspost all this rubbish to so many newsgroups?
(o)(o)
Fox shot and beaten at Sandringham
Animal Aid is calling for the man who beat and stamped on a fox while
out shooting pheasants at Sandringham with Prince Philip to be
prosecuted under the 1996 Wild Mammals Protection Act.
The fox ran from his cover and was blasted with shotgun pellets. He
fell to the ground twitching and the un-named man then beat him over
the head with a pole. Four minutes later, when the last of the birds
had been shot from the sky, the man returned to the fox and stamped on
him before throwing his lifeless body into a hedge.
The comments of Animal Aid's Director, Andrew Tyler were widely
reported across the media. He said:
'This poor fox should not have been killed in the first place. But it
is outrageous that Prince Philip and his pals carried on shooting for
fun while he was in his agonised death throes.'
The incident drew universal condemnation from those who saw the
shocking photos and read the account.
Foxes are just one of many victims of the shooting industry. The large
numbers of pheasants and partridges inevitably attract - and, in fact,
boost the populations of - predator species such as stoats, weasels,
foxes and members of the crow family. Gamekeepers deliberately kill
them by setting traps and snares. But species ranging from badgers to
cats and dogs - even protected birds of prey like owls and kestrels -
are caught and killed. Millions of animals are slaughtered every year
in these 'predator control' programmes.
Animal Aid has written formally to the RSPCA asking that they
investigate this case fully and prosecute the man responsible for the
suffering he caused.
Order a free Shooting pack - for more information about the callous
shooting industry
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/ACTIVE/action/ALL/1125//
Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and promotes
a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by joining, making
a donation, or using our online shop.
Contact Animal Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge,
Kent, TN9 1AW, UK, tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533,
email in...@animalaid.org.uk.
(o)(o)
22 January 2007
PRINCE'S HUNT FOX DEATH IS PROBED
THE RSPCA are to probe claims that a fox was stamped to death after
being shot by a hunting group led by Prince Philip.
Animal rights campaigners are furious that the fox was apparently left
in agony for five minutes before being "finished off".
They could push for a prosecution if they think it suffered
unnecessarily. The fox was shot three times on the Sandringham estate
in Norfolk.
It fell to the ground but was seen twitching.
A minute later, a beater from the party went over and hit it on the
head. The man was snapped stamping on the fox as the minutes passed on
Saturday morning.
Last night, an RSPCA spokesman said: "Our prosecutions department will
be studying the photographs for any evidence of cruelty.
"It is not illegal to shoot a fox dead but it is against the law to
cause unnecessary suffering to an animal.
"We can only bring a prosecution if the law has been broken and we can
prove it."
Andrew Tyler, of charity Animal Aid, added: "It is outrageous that
Prince Philip and his pals carried on shooting for fun while this fox
was in its agonised death throes.
"Millions of ordinary people will be disgusted."
The Queen, patron of the RSPCA, is believed to have been at
Sandringham House and didn't see the killing.
Buckingham Palace said "it was a private shoot".
(o)(o)
http://tinyurl.com/35qrg3
CHARGE HIM
Wounded fox brutally beaten to death at a royal shoot
By Aidan Mcgurran
FURIOUS animal rights campaigners are demanding that a man with Prince
Philip's shooting party is charged with animal cruelty after stomping
on an injured fox.
The animal was blasted by shotgun pellets as it dashed for cover as
Philip and his seven pals shot pheasants on the 20,000-acre
Sandringham estate in Norfolk.
It fell to the ground but lay twitching, showing it was still alive.
As these photographs show, a minute later the beater clubbed it over
the head with a flag pole used to scare the birds into the air.
The fox was left in agony for a further four minutes before he stamped
on it then picked up its lifeless body and hurled in into a hedge.
Andrew Tyler, director of charity Animal Aid, said: "It is outrageous
that Prince Philip and his pals carried on shooting for fun while it
was in its agonised death throes. I would certainly like to see a
prosecution."
The RSPCA - whose patron is the Queen - could bring charges under the
1996 Wild Mammals Protection Act.
An onlooker who saw the incident on Saturday said: "A cry of 'Fox!
Fox!' went up and almost instantly three or four shots rang out. It
was twitching on the ground, indicating it was still alive.
"A minute later a beater walked over and clubbed it with his stick.
"After all the birds had come over and the shooting stopped he went
back and stamped on its midriff."
It is not illegal to shoot a fox dead but it is against the law to
cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. It is not clear whether
Philip saw the incident.
Last night the RSPCA said: "Our prosecutions department will be
studying the photographs for any evidence of cruelty."
(o)(o)
wrote:
Royal Estate breaks Hunting Act
Jan 22nd, 2007, 9:28am You may have read the report on the demise of
a fox on the Sandringham Estate during a day's shooting. It was in the
Sunday Times yesterday.
The poor fox was shot but able to get up and snarl at a gun dog. The
fox was then beaten with a flag before being finished off
unceremoniously with a stamp to the head.
The report doesn't try to put a slant on this act of vulpicide but it
does fail to mention that this almost certainly broke the Hunting Act
2004.
You cannot flush a mammal (other than rabbits or rats) towards a gun
or guns with more than two dogs. There would almost certainly have
been many times more than that with the beaters.
(o)(o)
wrote:
But was the intent behind the activity to kill foxes?
Either way the Guns present should have known better than to be
shooting things that dont fly on a driven day.
If foxes are to be controlled, it should be done by 'keepers on days
other than shooting days, in a professional manner.
Only lazy 'keepers leave it to the paying Guns on shoot days, so that
they can spend their nights in the pub.
(o)(o)
Groups Investigate
January 22, 2007 10:03 a.m. EST
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006213035
Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter
London, England (BANG) - Britain's Prince Philip is embroiled in an
animal cruelty scandal after an injured fox was left to die in agony
during a hunt lead by the royal.
Animal rights groups have called on the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) to investigating the incident
which occurred at Sandringham estate, Queen Elizabeth's Norfolk
retreat, on Saturday.
Witnesses claim members of the eight-men pheasant hunting party shot
the animal twice, leaving it writhing in agony for a few minutes,
before clubbing it over the head and stomping on it to "finish it
off."
An onlooker, who saw the incident told Britain's The Sun newspaper, "A
cry of, 'Fox! Fox!' went up and almost instantly three or four shots
rang out. The fox was twitching on the ground, indicating it was still
alive. A minute later a beater walked over and clubbed it with his
stick. After all the birds had come over and the shooting stopped, he
went back and stamped on its midriff."
Campaigners are now hoping to investigate the "unnecessary suffering"
caused to the fox.
An RSPCA spokesman said, "Our prosecutions department will be studying
the photographs for any evidence of cruelty."
The RSPCA - whose patron is the queen - could bring charges under the
1996 Wild Mammals Protection Act, since it is against the law to cause
unnecessary suffering to any animals.
It is not clear whether Philip had seen the incident. Buckingham
Palace has so far refused to comment, insisting it was a "private
shoot."
(o)(o)
Pest control — Sandringham style
This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
undergrowth.
The prince, whose shooting parties bag up to 7,000 pheasants a season,
looked on nonchalantly, shotgun across his arm. Philip, 85, was
previously thought to have given up shooting because of failing
eyesight.
The fox’s demise, although legal, is more likely to cause a ballyhoo
among city dwellers. In 2004 the Queen was criticised by animal rights
campaigners after taking a wounded pheasant from a gun dog’s jaws and
beating it with her walking stick until dead. In 2000, she was
photographed wringing the neck of a badly injured bird at Sandringham.
(o)(o)
By Andrew Alderson and Jasper Copping, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 21/01/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/nfox21.xml
The Duke of Edinburgh was at the centre of an animal cruelty row
yesterday after a fox was clubbed to death with a flagpole during a
royal shoot.
The animal was initially shot and badly injured when it broke cover
during a pheasant shoot at Sandringham, the Queen's private estate in
Norfolk. The animal lay twitching on the ground for up to five minutes
before it was "finished off" by a beater.
According to witnesses, Prince Philip, 85, did not shoot the fox but
watched the events from 30 yards away. The Queen was not present.
Animal rights campaigners, angry that the fox was not killed
immediately after being blasted by shotgun pellets, called on the
RSPCA to investigate.
advertisementThe fox was targeted when it broke cover from woodland
and shot as it tried to dash between the guns.
An onlooker said: "A cry of 'fox, fox' went up and almost instantly
three or four shots rang out. It was definitely twitching on the
ground for a few seconds, indicating it was still alive.
"First a gundog went to investigate. Then, exactly a minute after it
was shot, a beater walked over.
"He clubbed the injured fox once on the head with his stick which had
a white flag on the end to scare pheasants into the air. The fox was
then left on the ground for another four minutes while the shooting of
the pheasants continued.
"When all the birds had come over and the shooting stopped, the same
beater went back to the fox and stamped on its midriff." The beater
picked up the body of the fox by its tail and threw it into a hedge.
Andrew Tyler, the director of the charity Animal Aid, said: "This poor
fox should not have been killed in the first place. But it is
outrageous that Prince Philip and his pals carried on shooting for fun
while it was in its agonised death throes."
Foxes are often shot by gamekeepers on country estates to stop them
killing game birds, which would otherwise be shot for sport. An RSPCA
spokesman said: "We would like to see the photographs of the incident
and we will investigate any complaint of cruelty. The RSPCA is opposed
to the killing of predatory animals solely because they may be
considered a threat to game birds."
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "This was a private shoot and we
are not offering any comment."
It is not the first time the Royal Family has been at the centre of
animal cruelty allegations.
Seven years ago, the Queen was accused of cruelty by anti-field sports
activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
>
>
>Pest control — Sandringham style
>
>
>This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
>Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
>First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
>on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
>to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
>flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
>dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
>uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
>undergrowth.
This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
evidence.
It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
they are willing to dispense.
>
>
>
>The prince, whose shooting parties bag up to 7,000 pheasants a season,
>looked on nonchalantly, shotgun across his arm. Philip, 85, was
>previously thought to have given up shooting because of failing
>eyesight.
>
>The fox’s demise, although legal, is more likely to cause a ballyhoo
>among city dwellers. In 2004 the Queen was criticised by animal rights
>campaigners after taking a wounded pheasant from a gun dog’s jaws and
>beating it with her walking stick until dead. In 2000, she was
>photographed wringing the neck of a badly injured bird at Sandringham.
>
>
>
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
(o)(o)
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:55:39 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
>>
>>
>>Pest control — Sandringham style
>>
>>
>>This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
>>Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
>>First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
>>on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
>>to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
>>flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
>>dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
>>uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
>>undergrowth.
>
>This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
>evidence.
>
>It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
>they are willing to dispense.
>
>
Very likely an offence under the 2004 hunting act as well.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:55:39 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
> >
> >
> >Pest control — Sandringham style
> >
> >
> >This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
> >Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
> >First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
> >on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
> >to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
> >flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
> >dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
> >uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
> >undergrowth.
>
> This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
> evidence.
>
> It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
> they are willing to dispense.
No. It shows the effect of the legislation that you were so keen on. The
fox was disturbed by, presumably, a beater with a dog. If a dog is involved
it is illegal to let the fox escape: it -must- be shot.
Once shot it is illegal to leave it to suffer (under 80's legislation) so a
keeper, as soon as the gun line could be warned safe (apparently about a
minute which is pretty quick) went to check on the animal. It is no
surprise that it was not dead as foxes are hard to kill with birdshot. The
keeper then finished it with a blow from a stout stick. Later, as a final
check before disposing of the body, the keeper checked there was no vital
reaction to stimulus.
This is an entirely correct, minimal cruelty, course of action. Before the
Hunting act the fox might have been allowed to escape or, if shot and
wounded, it might have been finished off faster by the dogs.
> >The fox’s demise, although legal, is more likely to cause a ballyhoo
> >among city dwellers.
Maybe, but there's no point. No other action would have been both legal and
less cruel.
> In 2004 the Queen was criticised by animal rights
> >campaigners after taking a wounded pheasant from a gun dog’s jaws and
> >beating it with her walking stick until dead. In 2000, she was
> >photographed wringing the neck of a badly injured bird at Sandringham.
Somewhat stupid to complain when someone acts to stop suffering.
Cheerio,
--
(o)(o)
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <heder2d1i0cdrh7qa...@4ax.com>,
><URL:mailto:amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:55:39 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
>> >
>> >
>> >Pest control — Sandringham style
>> >
>> >
>> >This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
>> >Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
>> >First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
>> >on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
>> >to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
>> >flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
>> >dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
>> >uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
>> >undergrowth.
>>
>> This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
>> evidence.
>>
>> It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
>> they are willing to dispense.
>
>No. It shows the effect of the legislation that you were so keen on.
A great success by all accounts, apart from a very vocal minority of
extremists intent on breaking the law. Many hunts have turned to drag
hunting, with great success, claiming "it has now turned into a family
sport" "there has been no need to have any animals destroyed,
although we are breeding slightly fewer hounds than before" " we have
only had to make minimal redundancies." In fact in many areas there
has been an increase in equine turnover due to drag hunting.
> The
>fox was disturbed by, presumably, a beater with a dog. If a dog is involved
>it is illegal to let the fox escape: it -must- be shot.
>
>Once shot it is illegal to leave it to suffer (under 80's legislation) so a
>keeper, as soon as the gun line could be warned safe (apparently about a
>minute which is pretty quick) went to check on the animal. It is no
>surprise that it was not dead as foxes are hard to kill with birdshot. The
>keeper then finished it with a blow from a stout stick. Later, as a final
>check before disposing of the body, the keeper checked there was no vital
>reaction to stimulus.
The facts are there for all to see. Hopefully prosecutions will
follow. It was contrary to the law, and the spirit of the hunt ban.
>This is an entirely correct, minimal cruelty, course of action. Before the
>Hunting act the fox might have been allowed to escape or, if shot and
>wounded, it might have been finished off faster by the dogs.
Exactly the same would have happened.
>> >The fox’s demise, although legal, is more likely to cause a ballyhoo
>> >among city dwellers.
>
>Maybe, but there's no point. No other action would have been both legal and
>less cruel.
Let the animal go. Knee jerk reaction of people with shotguns, in a
crowd is dangerous, and not just for the fox. I am pretty confident a
prosecution will follow.
>> In 2004 the Queen was criticised by animal rights
>> >campaigners after taking a wounded pheasant from a gun dog’s jaws and
>> >beating it with her walking stick until dead. In 2000, she was
>> >photographed wringing the neck of a badly injured bird at Sandringham.
>
>Somewhat stupid to complain when someone acts to stop suffering.
By causing suffering, and endangering life!
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:53 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:55:39 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
>>>
>>>
>>>Pest control — Sandringham style
>>>
>>>
>>>This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
>>>Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
>>>First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
>>>on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
>>>to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
>>>flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
>>>dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
>>>uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
>>>undergrowth.
>>
>>This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
>>evidence.
>>
>>It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
>>they are willing to dispense.
>>
>>
>
>Very likely an offence under the 2004 hunting act as well.
>
And what they seem to forget is that we are paying for their idle rich
pastimes.
(o)(o)
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:48:42 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:53 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:55:39 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pest control — Sandringham style
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
>>>>Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
>>>>First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
>>>>on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
>>>>to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
>>>>flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
>>>>dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
>>>>uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
>>>>undergrowth.
>>>
>>>This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
>>>they are willing to dispense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Very likely an offence under the 2004 hunting act as well.
>>
>
>
>And what they seem to forget is that we are paying for their idle rich
>pastimes.
>
Some of us don't. You'd think the fact that the whole royalty stage is
in question, would ensure they stood out as exemplary examples, not
rubbed our noses in it. The sooner they are history, the better. Which
is a shame really.
amacm...@aol.com
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <heder2d1i0cdrh7qa...@4ax.com>,
><URL:mailto:amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:55:39 +0000, "(o)(o)" <yh5er...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Sunday Times January 21, 2007
>> >
>> >
>> >Pest control — Sandringham style
>> >
>> >
>> >This fox never stood a chance when it had a brush with the guns at
>> >Prince Philip’s shooting party yesterday, writes Maurice Chittenden.
>> >First it was blasted by one of eight people taking part in the shoot
>> >on the Sandringham estate. Then, as it lay wounded, it raised itself
>> >to snarl at a gundog, so a gamekeeper beat it over the head with a
>> >flag used to signal to the beaters. Still not sure whether the fox was
>> >dead, the gamekeeper was spotted doing the unspeakable to the
>> >uneatable, appearing to stamp on it before dragging it into the
>> >undergrowth.
>>
>> This was front page news in the Daily Mail as well with photographic
>> evidence.
>>
>> It shows the Royals' nasty streak against wildlife and the cruelty
>> they are willing to dispense.
>
>No. It shows the effect of the legislation that you were so keen on. The
>fox was disturbed by, presumably, a beater with a dog. If a dog is involved
>it is illegal to let the fox escape: it -must- be shot.
Garbage! That would mean that every time a fox that was flushed by
dogs and wasn't shot or a shot missed and it escaped the hunters are
committing an offence. And also AFAIMA it is not mandatory to shoot a
fox on sight.
>
>Once shot it is illegal to leave it to suffer (under 80's legislation) so a
>keeper, as soon as the gun line could be warned safe (apparently about a
>minute which is pretty quick) went to check on the animal. It is no
>surprise that it was not dead as foxes are hard to kill with birdshot.
Sure we all know how cruel shooting foxes is. Many escape wounded and
die later.
>The
>keeper then finished it with a blow from a stout stick. Later, as a final
>check before disposing of the body, the keeper checked there was no vital
>reaction to stimulus.
>
By stamping on its head. I know whose head I'd like to stand on!
>This is an entirely correct, minimal cruelty, course of action. Before the
>Hunting act the fox might have been allowed to escape or, if shot and
>wounded, it might have been finished off faster by the dogs.
>
>> >The fox’s demise, although legal, is more likely to cause a ballyhoo
>> >among city dwellers.
>
>Maybe, but there's no point. No other action would have been both legal and
>less cruel.
>
>> In 2004 the Queen was criticised by animal rights
>> >campaigners after taking a wounded pheasant from a gun dog’s jaws and
>> >beating it with her walking stick until dead. In 2000, she was
>> >photographed wringing the neck of a badly injured bird at Sandringham.
>
>Somewhat stupid to complain when someone acts to stop suffering.
>
>Cheerio,
They certainly made headline news so hopefully they didn't die in
vain.
(o)(o)
and ourselves, whilst the CONservation hooligans like the RSPB, WT etc
continue to conduct theme park conservation values. Here is a site of
topical interest.
Crazy prices, and crazy waste of resource.
Costs of Road Schemes
Introduction
http://www.roadblock.org.uk/costs.htm
INTRODUCTION
The costs of road schemes have traditionally always gone up whilst a
scheme goes through the planning processes, but currently roads are
experiencing higher than normal cost escalation. Costs have always
gone up as road planners have traditionally exaggerated the benefits
of the their schemes and underestimated the costs in order to gain
approval. Once a scheme is approved, the real costs emerge as the
scheme is taken through the planning processes, but by this time the
scheme has developed momentum and much time and money has been
invested in it and it becomes harder to drop. The Treasury introduced
'optimism bias' to deal with this phenomenon in 2003 but still the
costs are rising (see "Optimism Bias" below)
Road Block has been tracking the costs of schemes for a year and a
half through a series of Parliamentary Questions.
LATEST COSTS OF THE ROADS PROGRAMME
There are a number of funding streams for new roads.
The main one is the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) which is
the Highways Agency's trunk road programme, which currently totals
£10.232 billion.
Other government funding streams for roads are via the Local Transport
Plan (LTP), currently totalling £1.703 billion, and the Community
Infrastructure Fund (CIF) which totals £81.96 million.
This brings the total of government approved schemes to
£12,016,989,000 (£12 billion).
The latest tables showing the all latest approved costs are here.
COSTS PER MILE
The latest cost of a mile of new motorway is £29.9 million.
Source: Hansard, Column 37W, 30 Oct 2006:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061030/text/61030w0007.htm#06103073000170
Adding an extra lane to a motorway costs approximately £10 million per
mile, a mile of dual carriageway costs £16.2 million and a single
carriageway is £10.6 million per mile.
THE BIGGEST SCHEMES
Currently the single biggest contract in the roads programme is the M1
widening between junctions 21-30. This costs a staggering £1.9 billion
for just 50 miles. This works out at £38 million a mile.
Put all together the M1 widening contracts total £3.74 billion.
The M25 widening contract costs 'only' £1.6 billion, however it is
being offered to the private sector as a Design, Build, Finance and
Operate (DBFO) or PFI contract. The lucky contractor will pay for the
road construction up front, but then will be paid over £5 billion over
a 30 year period out of tax payers money - Britain's biggest mortgage
and a profit of £3.4 billion for the private sector.
The government in the Spring of 2007 will decide whether or not to
approve the M6 widening from Birmingham to Manchester. This is
currently costed at £2.9 billion for 51 miles of one extra lane each
way.
The government have just fully approved the A3 Hindhead scheme despite
a massive cost increase. The scheme was first approved at £107
million, later costs increased to £239 and in 2006 the scheme was
finally approved at £371 million.
Other big projects include the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton scheme at
£490 million, and the A120 Braintree to Mark's Tey at £320 million
(yet to be approved into the programme).
Large local authority schemes include the Weymouth Relief Road at £77
million, the A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass at £53
million, and the £52 million Hastings Bypass. Currently the government
are deciding whether or not to approve the £108 million Heysham to M6
Link in Lancaster.
SOURCE OF COSTS DATA
The Parliamentary Written Answers supplying this data were on 24 May
2006, Hansard Column 1902W:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060524/text/60524w0554.htm#06052547000274
24 July 2006, Hansard Column 746W:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060724/text/60724w1873.htm#column_746W
6 Nov 2006, Hansard Column 685W:
COST INCREASES SINCE FIRST APPROVAL
Road Block has taken the cost of these projects when they were first
approved, and the latest costs whilst the schemes are going through
the planning process, and worked out how much they have increased in
this time. Almost all road costs have gone up significantly.
Currently schemes in the TPI trunk roads programme, approved before
April 2003 when the 'optimism bias' guidance was introduced, are
averaging 68 per cent cost increases. Local authority schemes approved
by the DfT are averaging 48 per cent cost increases.
REASONS FOR COST INCREASES
The reasons for cost increases are numerous. The Highways Agency and
local authorities will claim that it is 'external' factors such as
high energy prices that are driving up costs, whilst Road Block says
that it is more complex than that.
External factors - such as high energy, oil, materials and labour
costs - are driving up the costs. All indications are that these are
set to rise very steeply too. As China and India's economies expand
rapidly there will continue to be a massive demand for materials. In
Sept 2006, the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) reported that
construction inflation is set to rise by a predicted 33% over next
five years, whilst predicting that background inflation will run at
12% in same period See article in Contract Journal on 6 Sept.
DELIBERATE UNDERESTIMATING OF COSTS AND OPTIMISM BIAS
Although high energy and materials costs are no doubt driving up costs
of road schemes, this cost escalation problem is not new. Cost
escalation of road schemes has been going on for decades. Is a well
known phenomenon that in order to gain approval for projects promoters
of schemes will deliberately exaggerate the benefits of their scheme,
and underestimate the costs. Once approved the real costs will emerge
as the scheme goes through the planning processes, and will usually
increase again during the construction phase (see below). By the time
the scheme is approved however the political momentum builds up behind
a scheme that it is unlikely to be cancelled.
This tendency was covered by HM Treasury in its 2003 Green Book
(http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/) guidance on project appraisal.
They noted:
"There is a demonstrated, systematic, tendency for project appraisers
to be overly optimistic. This is a worldwide phenomenon that affects
both the private and public sectors. Many project parameters are
affected by optimism – appraisers tend to overstate benefits, and
understate timings and costs, both capital and operational."
Chapter 5, paragraph 61
The Treasury brought in this new guidance in 2003 to deal with this
phenomenon, which required the DfT to demand that the Highways Agency
and local authorities when promoting road schemes should 'build in'
these additional costs.
The best research on optimism bias is by Professor Bent Flyvbjerg who
published Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects, Error or
Lie, in the APA Journal in 2002. Professor Flyvbjerg reported in Local
Transport Today magazine (Iissue 438, 9 March 2006) that scheme
promoters are routinely getting forecasts wrong, and suggested there
should be sanctions, including criminal proceedings, against planners
who deliberately mislead to gain approval for a scheme.
IS OPTIMISM BIAS WORKING?
Since April 2003, the costs of schemes submitted for TPI entry
approval have been estimated using the Treasury's Green Book guidance,
that is they make allowance for inflation up to scheme completion, for
non-recoverable VAT and for 'optimism bias' in line with the Green
Book guidance.
This guidance also applies to local authority schemes which come to
the government for funding and approval.
However several schemes approved since the introduction of the
optimism bias guidance have since also gone up significantly in cost,
illustrating that the guidance is not working. Road Block suspects
that scheme promoters have simply adapted to the use of optimism bias
and have just adjusted the costs accordingly.
Two recent examples show the failure of optimism bias to encourage
realistic scheme cost estimating. The High Low Newton Bypass in the
Lake District National Park was finally approved in April 2006 at £35
million. The scheme had been previously approved in Oct 2003 at £22
million, after the introduction of optimism bias. So in less than
three years the costs had risen 59 per cent.
The Weymouth Relief Road in Dorset was approved in December 2003 at
£54 million, post introduction of optimism bias. In November 2005,
less than two years after approval, the costs were estimated to be £77
million - a 42 per cent increase. Dorset County Council have attempted
to put this huge failure in accurate forecasting down to 'inflation'
at 42 per cent! Road Block believes that the council deliberately lied
about the scheme costs to get a very controversial and dubious scheme
approved and the DfT failed to spot this when it approved it.
Before any scheme is approved the Department for Transport's own
Economics and Appraisal department are supposed to check the Business
Cases for the schemes. It is clear that the appraisal is not being
checked closely enough by the DfT.
INCREASED COSTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Freedom of Information requests to the Highways Agency about schemes
built in the last ten years have revealed that the increase between a
scheme's tender price (how much a contractor will bid for a scheme)
and the final out turn cost (how much it eventually costs the
taxpayer) is on average 29.34 per cent. The tables from the FOI
request can be viewed here:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/crs_478176_6march_spreadsheet.pdf
So schemes are approved at one cost, then go up again as the scheme is
going through the planning processes, then again at full approval and
when the tenders come back, and then the scheme costs go up yet again
when the final bill comes in after construction.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY ROADBUILDING BUDGET ALMOST DOUBLES TO COVER UP RISING
COSTS
Since 2002 the Highways Agency's annual roadbuilding budget has been
between £500 million and £700 million. However, in the 2006-7 Business
Plan for the Highways Agency, the budget leapt up to £1,046 million,
the first time it had passed £1 billion, and a 78 per cent increase
from £589 million in the previous year. The money to pay for this
roadbuilding was stolen from the other Highways Agency budgets which
all decreased, such as the Managing Traffic and Smaller Schemes
budgets. You can compare the budgets here and the Highways Agency's
2006-7 Business Plan can be viewed here:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/9938.aspx
The Highways Agency are not building any more roads with this
increased budget - it's the same old roads programme, just a lot more
expensive.
The Highways Agency have also recently decided to turn the £1.9
billion M1 junction 21-30 contract from a PFI contract, financed by
the private sector, into a state funded scheme. Somehow they have now
got to come up with £1.9 billion to add just one lane to some sections
of the M1.
WHAT ELSE COULD YOU DO WITH THE ROADBUILDING BUDGET?
"We also recognise that we cannot simply build our way out of the
problems we face. It would be environmentally irresponsible – and
would not work. So we must make our existing transport networks work
more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly way" - Prime
Minister Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Foreword to The Future of Transport
White Paper (2004).
In order to ease congestion, there are many things we could do rather
than endlessly try and build our way out of it. We all know that
public transport needs more investment so that we can see our railways
grow and become more reliable. We need better, cleaner and more
reliable buses and trams in city centres. However, the biggest gains
can be made from really simple low cost measures which can encourage
people to change their travel choices.
Innovative work by Sustrans at the Sustainable Travel Demonstration
Towns of Peterborough and Worcester has proved that it if households
choose greener and healthier alternatives just once or twice a week
car traffic can be significantly reduced by up to 13%. How is this
achieved? Sustrans have used what is called "Smarter Choices" and
Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM). The work involves making direct
contact with households by phone and on the doorstep to offer
personalised information and advice on alternatives to using the car,
from bespoke bus timetables, to discounts on cycles. When given
choices and information many people opt not to take the car.
Other work by Sustrans includes the Bike It! project which has seen
cycling quadruple in 40 different schools around the country.
Making Smarter Choices Work, by Professor Phil Goodwin, Lyn Sloman and
others, published by the Department for Transport, 2004.
Valuing the Small: Counting the Benefits, research report by Professor
Phil Goodwin of Transport Policy, University College London, published
October 2004.
Less Traffic where People Live: How local transport schemes can help
cut traffic, by Lyn Sloman of Transport for Quality of Life, published
July 2003,
For more information on alternatives to roadbuilding see the Road
Block website.
Mike
> Given the urgent need for us all to start looking after our planet,
> and ourselves, whilst the CONservation hooligans like the RSPB, WT etc
:-((
snip the rant of a person with a sad life.
Don't you lead an incredibly boring life?
Get out and enjoy yourself. 'THIS' is it, this is not a practice run.
Mike
--
..........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:15:07 +0000, Derek Moody
> <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
> >No. It shows the effect of the legislation that you were so keen on. The
> >fox was disturbed by, presumably, a beater with a dog. If a dog is involved
> >it is illegal to let the fox escape: it -must- be shot.
>
>
> Garbage! That would mean that every time a fox that was flushed by
> dogs and wasn't shot or a shot missed and it escaped the hunters are
> committing an offence. And also AFAIMA it is not mandatory to shoot a
> fox on sight.
If it is flushed by a dog it must be shot. Despite this I doubt a court
would convict if a reasonable attempt to shoot it was made that failed or if
at the critical moment it was not safe to discharge the weapon because of
circumstances beyond the control of the shooter. In the case of a fox
crossing a cleared field of fire a few yards in front of a line of guns that
same court would be unlikely to accept that no safe chance had presented and
that every attempt missed.
> >Once shot it is illegal to leave it to suffer (under 80's legislation) so a
> >keeper, as soon as the gun line could be warned safe (apparently about a
> >minute which is pretty quick) went to check on the animal. It is no
> >surprise that it was not dead as foxes are hard to kill with birdshot.
>
> Sure we all know how cruel shooting foxes is. Many escape wounded and
> die later.
Yes. We told you that shooting instead of hunting would lead to additional
suffering but you ignored it and insisted on the crueller method.
> >The
> >keeper then finished it with a blow from a stout stick. Later, as a final
> >check before disposing of the body, the keeper checked there was no vital
> >reaction to stimulus.
> >
>
> By stamping on its head. I know whose head I'd like to stand on!
It was dead. If it was a head stamp then the fox knew nothing of it.
I doubt it was a head stamp. A heel-crush on the neck at the base of the
skull to ensure a broken spine makes much more sense, alternatively, a stamp
to crush the rib cage and destroy any remaining breathing reflex.
Better a quick messy death than a slow, painful one.
Hamish
"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant25034...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
. In the case of a fox
> crossing a cleared field of fire a few yards in front of a line of guns
> that
> same court would be unlikely to accept that no safe chance had presented
> and
> that every attempt missed.
>
non-discharge of a gun.
There would also need to be evidence of a conspiricy to not fire the guns.
The decision of is it safe to fire must lie with the
gunman, he ultimately will take the blame for an unsafe discharge.
Jim Webster
> Better a quick messy death than a slow, painful one.
>
but slow painful death is more natural, normally from starvation when they
are too weak or ill to hunt any more
Jim Webster
(o)(o)
That's nature for you. Your favorite hobby never took out the weak or
ill either, much preferring young, fit healthy specimens, in order to
prolong the agony!
Oz
probably not just starvation but infection or thirst or (if lucky) cold.
With luck the rooks won't find them before they actually die as they are
partial to eyes.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
(o)(o)
wrote:
>Jim Webster <j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ant25034...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
>>
>>> Better a quick messy death than a slow, painful one.
>>>
>>but slow painful death is more natural, normally from starvation when they
>>are too weak or ill to hunt any more
>
>probably not just starvation but infection or thirst or (if lucky) cold.
>
>With luck the rooks won't find them before they actually die as they are
>partial to eyes.
Pro hunt has no interest in a foxes welfare, or any wildlife welfare
as it happens. If you think they kill wildlife for fun, out of concern
for the animal, you're having a laugh!
(o)(o)
skills, and so tend towards bullying, in particular bullying girls.
So, for them might I recommend an introduction into making friends?
DICTIONARY FOR WOMEN'S PERSONAL ADS
40-ish - 49
Adventurous - Slept with
everyone
Athletic - No tits
Average looking - Ugly
Beautiful -
Pathological liar
Contagious Smile - Does a lot of
pills
Emotionally secure - On medication
Feminist - Fat
Free spirit - Junkie
Friendship first - Former very
*friendly* person
Fun - Annoying
New Age - Body hair in
the wrong places
Open-minded - Desperate
Outgoing - Loud and
Embarrassing
Passionate - Sloppy drunk
Professional - Bitch
Voluptuous - Very Fat
Large frame - Hugely Fat
Wants Soul mate - Stalker
WOMEN'S ENGLISH
1. Yes = No
2. No = Yes
3. Maybe = No
4. We need = I want
5. I am sorry = you'll be sorry
6. We need to talk = you're in trouble
7. Sure, go ahead = you better not
8. Do what you want = you will pay for this later
9. I am not upset = of course I am upset, you moron!
10. You're very attentive tonight = is sex all you ever
think about?
MEN'S ENGLISH
1. I am hungry = I am hungry
2. I am sleepy = I am sleepy
3. I am tired = I am tired
4. Nice dress = Nice cleavage!
5. I love you = let's have sex now
6. I am bored = Do you want to have sex?
7. May I have this dance? = I'd like to have sex with
you
8. Can I call you sometime? = I'd like to have sex with you
9. Do you want to go to a movie? = I'd like to have
sex with you
10. Can I take you out to dinner? = I'd like to have
sex with you
11. Those shoes don't go with that outfit = I'm gay
And finally.....
A recent scientific study found that women find different male faces
attractive depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle.
For example, when a woman is ovulating she will prefer a man with
rugged, masculine features.
However when she is menstruating, she prefers a man doused in petrol
and set on fire, with scissors stuck in his eye and a cricket stump
shoved up his backside.
Jim Webster
"Oz" <O...@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:LURN9LA0...@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ant25034...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
>>
>>> Better a quick messy death than a slow, painful one.
>>>
>>but slow painful death is more natural, normally from starvation when they
>>are too weak or ill to hunt any more
>
> probably not just starvation but infection or thirst or (if lucky) cold.
>
> With luck the rooks won't find them before they actually die as they are
> partial to eyes.
we do find the pathetic corpses in gutters and similar places, they are
always very thin and scabby by the time they die.
Jim Webster
(o)(o)
So would you be if you had been maimed by some incompetent redneck
with a gun, who didn't care how he shot you! This is why we should be
taking guns away from people who don't have the competence to use
them!
Peter Duncanson
[uba only]
The foxy blighters won't stay still to be cleanly shot!
Farmers are unable to get licences to use rifle grenades.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
Oz
>we do find the pathetic corpses in gutters and similar places, they are
>always very thin and scabby by the time they die.
Yes, not a nice way to die at all.
No painkillers either.
(o)(o)
Just as well!
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster <j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>we do find the pathetic corpses in gutters and similar places, they are
>>always very thin and scabby by the time they die.
>
> Yes, not a nice way to die at all.
>
> No painkillers either.
exactly, dying a slow painful death from disease or starvation is about the
best even the healthiest and unhunted fox can hope for.
Someone doing the last rites with a blow to the back of the head is mercy
indeed compared to nature
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:r0hhr2pc4a33ulekm...@4ax.com...
leaves us no option but to nuke 'em from orbit
Jim Webster
Hamish
"Jim Webster" <j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51s93pF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> Farmers are unable to get licences to use rifle grenades.
>
> leaves us no option but to nuke 'em from orbit
>
I expect as the number of foxes grow and the ineffectiveness of
'vigilantee' farmers armed roaming the countryside that the government will
step in and form a mounted uniformed organisation using trained dogs to pick
out sick and elderly foxes.
(o)(o)
Oz
People tend to forget that (in effect) nature has no ethics and cares
nothing for suffering at all, that's something pretty well unique to
human society.
(o)(o)
wrote:
Indeed. We have a choice to be cruel or not!
David P
I arrived but soo disappeared. I picked up a copy of the London paper
to see a photo of an urban fox that had wanderd into one of the shops.
Poor thing - scrawny and mangy but I guess that pretty typical of urban
foxes. Enormous contrats to rural ones.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food
supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!
Steve Firth
Good idea, since this will be a quasi-military organisation they would be
well advised to select a uniform in traditional army colours, say green and
red.
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>'I say, we only winged the blighter. Will somebody finish it off?'
>By Andrew Alderson and Jasper Copping, Sunday Telegraph
>Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 21/01/2007
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/nfox21.xml
>
>The Duke of Edinburgh was at the centre of an animal cruelty row
>yesterday after a fox was clubbed to death with a flagpole during a
>royal shoot.
>
>The animal was initially shot and badly injured when it broke cover
>during a pheasant shoot at Sandringham, the Queen's private estate in
>Norfolk. The animal lay twitching on the ground for up to five minutes
>before it was "finished off" by a beater.
>
>According to witnesses, Prince Philip, 85, did not shoot the fox but
>watched the events from 30 yards away. The Queen was not present.
>Animal rights campaigners, angry that the fox was not killed
>immediately after being blasted by shotgun pellets, called on the
>RSPCA to investigate.
>
>advertisementThe fox was targeted when it broke cover from woodland
>and shot as it tried to dash between the guns.
>
>An onlooker said: "A cry of 'fox, fox' went up and almost instantly
>three or four shots rang out. It was definitely twitching on the
>ground for a few seconds, indicating it was still alive.
>
>"First a gundog went to investigate. Then, exactly a minute after it
>was shot, a beater walked over.
>
>"He clubbed the injured fox once on the head with his stick which had
>a white flag on the end to scare pheasants into the air. The fox was
>then left on the ground for another four minutes while the shooting of
>the pheasants continued.
>
>"When all the birds had come over and the shooting stopped, the same
>beater went back to the fox and stamped on its midriff." The beater
>picked up the body of the fox by its tail and threw it into a hedge.
>
>Andrew Tyler, the director of the charity Animal Aid, said: "This poor
>fox should not have been killed in the first place. But it is
>outrageous that Prince Philip and his pals carried on shooting for fun
>while it was in its agonised death throes."
>
>Foxes are often shot by gamekeepers on country estates to stop them
>killing game birds, which would otherwise be shot for sport. An RSPCA
>spokesman said: "We would like to see the photographs of the incident
>and we will investigate any complaint of cruelty. The RSPCA is opposed
>to the killing of predatory animals solely because they may be
>considered a threat to game birds."
>
>A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "This was a private shoot and we
>are not offering any comment."
>
>It is not the first time the Royal Family has been at the centre of
>animal cruelty allegations.
>
>Seven years ago, the Queen was accused of cruelty by anti-field sports
>activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
>which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
>
Hunters never care about cruelty :-((
mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
amacm...@aol.com writes
>>
>>Seven years ago, the Queen was accused of cruelty by anti-field sports
>>activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
>>which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
>>
>
>
>Hunters never care about cruelty :-((
>
wring its neck?
--
Malcolm Kane
Jim Webster
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5vv1eaBt...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
why should a class warrior care about birds?
Jim Webster
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
Shouldn't have been shot in the first place to cause the injuries.
Christina Websell
What do you mean?
Tina
WaltA
>>>>Seven years ago, the Queen was accused of cruelty by anti-field sports
>>>>activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
>>>>which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
>>>Hunters never care about cruelty :-((
>>You consider it less cruel to leave the poor bird wounded rather than
>>wring its neck?
>Shouldn't have been shot in the first place to cause the injuries.
>Angus Macmillan
Exakerrly ! Well said Angus,
and they call themselves sportspersons.
I've no problem with those who shoot or trap or fish, or whatever, for
(genuine intentioned ) food,
but to grow to release to shoot (or to fish) for _sport_ is,, beyond
the pale.
Ok, anglers toss 'em back in after they have had their fun
,,, try throwing a pheasant back in the air :( !
(you can see what doesn't happen ! )
Jane
> It is not the first time the Royal Family has been at the centre of
> animal cruelty allegations.
>
> activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
> which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
>
>
What kind of behaviour do you expect from (ignorant, inbred) gits like
the so called 'royal' family who get pleasure from killing anything that
moves? Personally I think someone should wring the Queen and Phil the
Greek's necks and save the country a lot of money keeping a useless and
not very bright group of people who ponse around their various big
houses, eating of silver plates and concealing many of the world's
greatest works of art in cellars, so us mere taxpayers never get to see
etc. etc. Up the revolution.
amacm...@aol.com
Well put!
Mike
"Jane" <thenoupes...@btyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QISdnYqVL-2...@bt.com...
Couldn't have put it better myself :-)
And as for the 'hangers on' :-(((
Mike
--
..........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
WaltA
>> I think someone should wring the Queen and Phil the
>> Greek's necks and save the country a lot of money keeping a useless
I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
necks of poor dumb creatures !
I've got an alternative soln. :
The aussies complain about having an absentee monarch,
well we could 'transport' The Family, we'll even pay the postage,
so the aussies get a real monarch and we can have the republic.
back to u.r.g,, is it time to sow the carrots yet :) ?
mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
amacm...@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:15:57 +0000, mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
>wrote:
>
>>In message <me3nr2h1pg59vk6sj...@4ax.com>,
>>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>Seven years ago, the Queen was accused of cruelty by anti-field sports
>>>>activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
>>>>which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hunters never care about cruelty :-((
>>>
>>You consider it less cruel to leave the poor bird wounded rather than
>>wring its neck?
>
>
>Shouldn't have been shot in the first place to cause the injuries.
>
That Angus is not the point. Pheasant shooting is perfectly legal. If
you would prefer it wasn't then take it up with your member of
parliament.
It is a perfectly legal sport so are you saying that having been shot
the bird shouldn't have been humanely dispatched.
--
Malcolm Kane
Alan Holmes
"WaltA" <ple...@dontspam.nothere.com> wrote in message
news:45bc3a46...@text.news.ntlworld.com...
>
>>>>>Seven years ago, the Queen was accused of cruelty by anti-field sports
>>>>>activists after she was photographed wringing the neck of a pheasant
>>>>>which had been peppered with shot during a shoot at Sandringham.
>
>>>>Hunters never care about cruelty :-((
>
>>>You consider it less cruel to leave the poor bird wounded rather than
>>>wring its neck?
>
>>Shouldn't have been shot in the first place to cause the injuries.
>>Angus Macmillan
>
> Exakerrly ! Well said Angus,
> and they call themselves sportspersons.
>
> I've no problem with those who shoot or trap or fish, or whatever, for
> (genuine intentioned ) food,
> but to grow to release to shoot (or to fish) for _sport_ is,, beyond
> the pale.
But, they are alwys eaten, not left to rot.
Alan
Richard Corbett
> It is a perfectly legal sport so are you saying that having been shot the
> bird shouldn't have been humanely dispatched.
>
> --
> Malcolm Kane
Is it a sport extinguishing the life of a fellow planet dweller? Is the
taking of any life a sport? Is war a sport? At least soldiers fight each
other - it is not so loaded the way of of the coward who is taking no risk -
other than perhaps being shat on.
This is not necessarily my view, I'm just inviting comment. Two of the most
difficult things I am trying to understand one way or the other are the
above and how otherwise intelligent people can believe in a god.
Any help gratefully received
Richard
amacm...@aol.com
<corbett...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>> It is a perfectly legal sport so are you saying that having been shot the
>> bird shouldn't have been humanely dispatched.
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm Kane
>
>Is it a sport extinguishing the life of a fellow planet dweller? Is the
>taking of any life a sport? Is war a sport? At least soldiers fight each
>other - it is not so loaded the way of of the coward who is taking no risk -
>other than perhaps being shat on.
Definitely not sport and definitely a cowards fun. These wildlife
populations are parallel populations to our own and should be treated
with respect.
>
>This is not necessarily my view, I'm just inviting comment.
The view above id definitely mine.
>Two of the most
>difficult things I am trying to understand one way or the other are the
>above and how otherwise intelligent people can believe in a god.
>
>Any help gratefully received
IMO Gods are fairy stories initially brought about to keep the plebs
in order. Now we have states that act like Gods :-(
Jane
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:27:45 GMT, "Richard Corbett"
> <corbett...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>> It is a perfectly legal sport so are you saying that having been shot the
>>> bird shouldn't have been humanely dispatched.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Malcolm Kane
>> Is it a sport extinguishing the life of a fellow planet dweller? Is the
>> taking of any life a sport? Is war a sport? At least soldiers fight each
>> other - it is not so loaded the way of of the coward who is taking no risk -
>> other than perhaps being shat on.
>
> Definitely not sport and definitely a cowards fun. These wildlife
> populations are parallel populations to our own and should be treated
> with respect.
>
>> This is not necessarily my view, I'm just inviting comment.
>
> The view above id definitely mine.
>
>> Two of the most
>> difficult things I am trying to understand one way or the other are the
>> above and how otherwise intelligent people can believe in a god.
>>
>> Any help gratefully received
>
> IMO Gods are fairy stories initially brought about to keep the plebs
> in order. Now we have states that act like Gods :-(
>
>
the code, CONFESS wrongs and be instantly forgiven. How convenient. It's
easier to be a member of a club. (Safety in numbers). To take
responsibility for one's own life and actions is too much of an effort
for many people. And too scary. One would have to change, to make an
effort, to subdue one's ego, to stop worshipping possessions and
money... But the Christian faith is an hypocrisy. Everyone's trading on
Sunday (never mind what Jesus is supposed to have said). Our local
gamekeeper died. He was famous for blowing the heads off of animals and
birds, Sundays included. At the service, the vicar stated what a kind
man he was, what a lover or wildlife. And the hymn? "All things bright
and beautiful, all creatures great and small, all things wise and
wonderful (I shoot them f***ing all). Well, that was my version anyway.
amacm...@aol.com
100%.
Jim Webster
he never actually mentioned sunday trading, Indeed he healed people on the
Sabbath (which wasn't sunday but never mind)
Jane
>
> he never actually mentioned sunday trading, Indeed he healed people on the
> Sabbath (which wasn't sunday but never mind)
>
>
He 'allegedly' healed people on the Sabath... :-)
Well, I'm sure he didn't mention Sunday trading! And the Sabbath is
Saturday. But, of course, our Christian 'day of rest' - the Christian
Sabbath - has traditionally been Sunday (which, in fact, only serves to
illustrate that Christianity is a law unto itself). Sabbath comes from
the Hebrew word 'shabat' - which means seven. But a 'sacred' day of rest
is a 'sacred' day of rest! And it's not any more. And Jesus did mention
trading on the Sabbath. If Jesus was healing on the Sabbath it was
because he was doing God's work (apparently). But we are not. Healing
and shopping at Tesco are not the same thing (f you believe in healing).
Alan Holmes
"Richard Corbett" <corbett...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:l25vh.81462$n36....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> >
>> It is a perfectly legal sport so are you saying that having been shot the
>> bird shouldn't have been humanely dispatched.
>
> taking of any life a sport? Is war a sport? At least soldiers fight each
> other - it is not so loaded the way of of the coward who is taking no
> risk - other than perhaps being shat on.
So breeding chickens for food is inhumane, when you either cut their heads
off or strangle them, that is inhumane?
Ditto for sheep and cattle, the only difference is that shooting birds is
less effective than cutting throats of sheep!
Alan
Alan Holmes
What a load of crap!
Jane
people might have different views to him.
Jane
>
> But, they are alwys eaten, not left to rot.
>
> Alan
>
>
Rubbish.
chico
Pretty fucking rich coming from some fatuous bitch who just insulted
everyone with religious views, partcularly anyone of the Christian
faith, or anyone who has no silly visceral reaction to hunting or
flimsy moral opposition to it.
Jim Webster
if you have evidence then take it to the police because under the fallen
stock regulations dead game can only be disposed of through a licensed
knacker if it doesn't enter the food chain
If you don't have evidence then stop making silly accusations
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
>
>>
>> he never actually mentioned sunday trading, Indeed he healed people on
>> the Sabbath (which wasn't sunday but never mind)
> He 'allegedly' healed people on the Sabath... :-)
>
> Well, I'm sure he didn't mention Sunday trading! And the Sabbath is
> Saturday. But, of course, our Christian 'day of rest' - the Christian
> Sabbath - has traditionally been Sunday (which, in fact, only serves to
> illustrate that Christianity is a law unto itself).
why should Christianity use the Jewish day of rest?
Sabbath comes from
> the Hebrew word 'shabat' - which means seven. But a 'sacred' day of rest
> is a 'sacred' day of rest! And it's not any more. And Jesus did mention
> trading on the Sabbath.
where?
Jim Webster
amacm...@aol.com
There was a newspaper report last week where there was an open pit
where dead gamebirds were being dumped.
I think it was in England.
Christina Websell
My neighbour shoots and sometimes I find a brace of pheasants in my porch -
which I pluck, gut and eat.
I don't know of any shooters who allow what they have shot to rot.
Tina
>
Jane
Vete a la mierda, hijo de puta. I didn't insult anyone. If you could
read, you would see I was just stating an opinion, which is my right as
a human being. And it's what newsgroups are all about. You are obviously
another misogynistic person (look it up in the dictionary as it has more
than four letters). I'm sure the church would be proud of your language.
I don't have flimsy moral oppositions. They have real foundations. Your
post said absolutely nothing except what a limited mind and vocabulary
you possess.
Jane
Oz
>What kind of behaviour do you expect from (ignorant, inbred) gits like the so
>called 'royal' family who get pleasure from killing anything that moves?
>Personally I think someone should wring the Queen and Phil the Greek's necks and
>save the country a lot of money keeping a useless and not very bright group of
>people who ponse around their various big houses, eating of silver plates and
>concealing many of the world's greatest works of art in cellars, so us mere
>taxpayers never get to see etc. etc. Up the revolution.
Well I don't shoot.
But I do like to see gamebirds about, and they seem to quite like
wandering around the countryside which couldn't support them were it not
for the game feeders. Of course a lot of birds that are not gamebirds
use the gamefeeders.
So, all in all, it seems that there is more wildlife (good) where there
are effective shoots.
I comment because I am a farmer and for 30 years I let the rough areas
be rough, and the woodlands be wild. I allowed no hunting and no
professional shoot. Now I have let out the shooting to people who know
what they are at, I note there is a LOT more wildlife.
Nothing is as simplistic as people would have you believe.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Oz
>I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
>necks of poor dumb creatures !
Perhaps one could knaw away at their necks or, as our local sparrowhawk
does, pluck them whilst still alive.
Jane
saying they let it rot on purpose. You are all so defensive! I wonder wh
y (!) I have already been called a bitch (and a f***ing bitch by a
so-called Christian) for expressing my views about cruelty! Yes, very
godly behaviour. What I'm saying is that many birds are missed by the
dogs and are left to rot in the countryside. I should bloody well know
as I've lived amongst all this for years and my dog regularly finds the
rotting carcasses. If they are giving it away and leaving it on
neighbours doorsteps it must be because they have an excess.
Jane
> WaltA <ple...@dontspam.nothere.com> writes
>> I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
>> necks of poor dumb creatures !
>
> Perhaps one could knaw away at their necks or, as our local sparrowhawk
> does, pluck them whilst still alive.
>
do not make a lot of money out of it.
Alan Holmes
"Christina Websell" <spam...@tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:524k8lF...@mid.individual.net...
They are much to valuable for that!
Alan
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>> WaltA <ple...@dontspam.nothere.com> writes
>>> I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
>>> necks of poor dumb creatures !
>>
>> Perhaps one could knaw away at their necks or, as our local sparrowhawk
>> does, pluck them whilst still alive.
>>
>But Sparrowhawks do not do it for fun,
Perhaps.
Many carnivores do, though, cats and foxes being particularly known for
it.
>they do it to survive, and they do not
>make a lot of money out of it.
What has money to do with it?
Jane
> Jane <thenoupes...@btyahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Oz wrote:
>>> WaltA <ple...@dontspam.nothere.com> writes
>>>> I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
>>>> necks of poor dumb creatures !
>>> Perhaps one could knaw away at their necks or, as our local sparrowhawk
>>> does, pluck them whilst still alive.
>>>
>> But Sparrowhawks do not do it for fun,
>
> Perhaps.
> Many carnivores do, though, cats and foxes being particularly known for
> it.
What the hell have cats and foxes got to do with this? We are debating
the artificial breeding of game birds for shooting. This is
uk.rec.birdwatching, after all. I'm not talking about carnivores. I was
simply stating that sparrowhawks kill prey to survive, even if their
manner of killing is less efficient or 'humane'. It is their only way to
live. It is what they are. People in England shooting pheasants do not
kill to survive. And, by the way, humans are the worst for killing for
fun, actually. Even each other.
>
>> they do it to survive, and they do not
>> make a lot of money out of it.
>
> What has money to do with it?
>
What has money got to do with shoots? Isn't that a naive question?
Landowners make a hell of a lot of money out of it. It is BIG business.
Did you not know that?
amacm...@aol.com
Between £15,000 and £20,000 a week in Scotland
Pat Gardiner
"Gerald L R Stubbs" <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303033303...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <coSdnSdytqo...@bt.com>
> from Jane <thenoupes...@btyahoo.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> This is
>> uk.rec.birdwatching, after all.
>
> I could do without the crossposting from fuckwit ginnets like you.
> Unfortunately my newsreader does not allow crossposts nor is able to
> edit them out, so you will not have the benefit of reading my comment,
> which I find deeply frustrating.
>
> It leaves me feeling that I would like to put you against a wall and
> shoot you.
>
> My own opinion is that crossposts should be banned, so that anyone who
> wishes to crosspost across ten groups would have to post separately to
> all of them.
>
> Yes, I can killfile you, I know, I know, but I don't wish to spend a
> quarter of an hour each day adding twats like you to my killfile list.
Stubbsie - off to bed. You are incapable of adding anything to anything and
will be embarrassed in the morning.
You do this every weekend at about this time.
For goodness sake will you seek help!
PG
> --
> All the best,
> Stubbsy...
Jane
>>> What has money to do with it?
>>>
>> What has money got to do with shoots? Isn't that a naive question?
>> Landowners make a hell of a lot of money out of it. It is BIG business.
>> Did you not know that?
>
> Between £15,000 and £20,000 a week in Scotland
> Angus Macmillan
> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
> www.killhunting.org
> www.con-servation.org.uk
>
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Thanks, Angus. I'm off to bed. Must say I'm a bit pissed-off with the
same old abuse from people ganging up on others who have a more
progressive (and less cruel) outlook on life than they do. It seems
that, even in 2007, if you're a woman and have an opinion that is not
mainstream, you are a bitch. I was even called a f***ing fatuous bitch
by a Christian because I stated that I am not religious. I'm glad,
because I think that totally proves my point. I was also accused of
being a "lentil eater". Is that supposed to be an insult? I just wish
they'd be more adventurous and intelligent. Come on. They would, if they
could, burn me at the stake. And it was a Pope, don't you know, who
invented ovens in which to burn so called witches and their babies
together to save money for the parish. After torturing them and healing
them and making them pay for their board and treatment! All these things
are true. Of course they were not witches, just people who thought
things through and hand minds of their own. Like me. In any event, I
know that I live my life in the most spiritual way I can, and so I can
sleep well. I think you will sleep well too.
WaltA
>> shoot or trap or fish, or whatever, for
>> (genuine intentioned ) food,
>> but to grow to release to shoot (or to fish) for _sport_ is,, beyond
>> the pale.
>But, they are alwys eaten, not left to rot.
>Alan
We often eat pheasant and other game, _donated_to_us_because_the_
'shooters'_dont_want_them :-!(
Why do you always miss the point Alan ? Operative word was SPORT
I even underlined it to help you :-!)
What happens to the rest that dont come our way is ,, is ,, well ,,
debatable
WaltA
>>>previously) > not do it for fun,
>Perhaps.
>Many carnivores do, though, cats and foxes being particularly known for
>it.
Known for what ? Doing it fun ?? Rubish, they do it for perfectly
reasonable ( in their world view) survival instincts, you should not
anthropomorphise Oz.
WaltA
>What the hell have cats and foxes got to do with this? We are debating
>the artificial breeding of game birds for shooting.
Exakerrly !
>This is
>uk.rec.birdwatching, after all
Well aksherly it is also uk.rec.gardening and a host of other places
cos of the crosspostings !
WaltA
>WaltA writes
>>I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
>>necks of poor dumb creatures !
>
>Perhaps one could knaw away at their necks or, as our local sparrowhawk
>does, pluck them whilst still alive.
A pretty picture in the mind's eye, but rather you than me,
at their age I rkn they be quite tough by now !
errr, you did mean to type "pluck" did you :-!))
Jim Webster
What I'm saying is that many birds are missed by the
> dogs and are left to rot in the countryside. I should bloody well know as
> I've lived amongst all this for years and my dog regularly finds the
> rotting carcasses. If they are giving it away and leaving it on neighbours
> doorsteps it must be because they have an excess.
if this is true then you a liable for not reporting them under the fallen
stock regulations
Why have you not told the police?
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
if what you say is true, you are yourself guilty of not reporting them under
the fallen stock regulations
why have you not reported them?
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
so you don't care about the pain, only the money?
Jim Webster
Oz
>Well aksherly it is also uk.rec.gardening and a host of other places
>cos of the crosspostings !
Hi!
To uk.r.g
Hosepipe ban being over we can look forward to some heavy crops this
year.
Given reasonable weather of course....
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>> Jane <thenoupes...@btyahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> Oz wrote:
>>>> WaltA <ple...@dontspam.nothere.com> writes
>>>>> I sympathise but nevertheless one should not go round wringing the
>>>>> necks of poor dumb creatures !
>>>> Perhaps one could knaw away at their necks or, as our local sparrowhawk
>>>> does, pluck them whilst still alive.
>>>>
>>> But Sparrowhawks do not do it for fun,
>>
>> Perhaps.
>> Many carnivores do, though, cats and foxes being particularly known for
>> it.
>
>What the hell have cats and foxes got to do with this?
Hunting and killing for 'sport'.
A very natural carnivore behaviour.
>We are debating
>the artificial breeding of game birds for shooting.
Man 'artificially' breeds many animals, its what we do, its been our
natural behaviour for tens of thousands of years. Of course its not at
all artificial, the stock do their usual thing and man augments the feed
and protects them from predation and inclement weather thus reducing
(often hugely) the usual large mortality.
>This is
>uk.rec.birdwatching, after all. I'm not talking about carnivores. I was
>simply stating that sparrowhawks kill prey to survive, even if their
>manner of killing is less efficient or 'humane'.
I don't know they have been adequately observed to know if they always
consume ALL their prey, particularly outside the breeding season.
>It is their only way to
>live. It is what they are. People in England shooting pheasants do not
>kill to survive.
Nor (as said above) to cats and foxes (and probably many carnivores).
>And, by the way, humans are the worst for killing for
>fun, actually. Even each other.
Dunno. You gotta cat?
>>> they do it to survive, and they do not
>>> make a lot of money out of it.
>>
>> What has money to do with it?
>>
>What has money got to do with shoots? Isn't that a naive question?
>Landowners make a hell of a lot of money out of it. It is BIG business.
>Did you not know that?
No, what has money to do with the ethics of breeding birds for a shoot
as against breeding birds NOT for a shoot. Either way the same number
will survive by spring. Oh, actually more will survive on a shoot
because the feeders seem to be left out until late spring.
Oz
Learning to kill by playing with disabled live animals, like cats?
I guess that might be considered as an inbred and instinctive learning
instinct, but then one could argue the same for man. Man has been a
hunter (judging from stone tools, butchery marks and camp detritus) for
several million years. We probably need more practice than the cats, who
have been at it longer.
amacm...@aol.com
An insight into Christian barbarity is well documented in a modern
history "The First Crusade" by Thomas Asbridge.
Jane
then 3 days to come round!
Jane
the pain this thread would not exist in the first place. Classic stuff -
if you can't debate something intelligently, just refuse to recognise
what is actually being said.
Sparrowhawks do not artificially breed pheasants, release them into the
countryside into areas specially created for them to hide in, then
employ cowardly idiots with nothing better to do to scare them by
beating around with sticks. They do not charge other bored people vast
amounts of money to then blow the unfortunate and terrified birds into
oblivion. Sparrowhawks catch and eat a variety of prey and eat it in
order to survive. Otherwise they would die. Any suffering is not
gratuitous and for pleasure or any other gain other than survival. What
is there not to understand?
Jane
being said to you. It is probably pointless to try to state it clearly
again as you have decided to talk about something completely different
which everybody already knows as it's so damned obvious and which we are
not even discussing here.
Jane
ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BLOODY CATS OR HUNTING TO SURVIVE, or the raising
of sheep, cattle etc. We are speaking about the artificial breeding of a
non-native bird FOR FUN AND PROFIT. Christ. It's like beating your head
against a brick wall.
I am not, either, saying that pheasant shooting is the ONLY cruelty
perpetrated under the sun, or that man has a monopoly on cruelty.
However, apparently, birds of prey and other carnivores do not have a
brain as big as ours and that's why, when human beings knowingly and
intentionally inflict suffering on other, less canny creatures, it is
most despicable to witness and to tolerate and anyone with any real
humanity and decency objects strongly, as it is cowardly and abhorrent.
Jane
>
>
> An insight into Christian barbarity is well documented in a modern
> history "The First Crusade" by Thomas Asbridge.
>
Thanks Angus. I will be interested to have a copy of that. Many years
ago a friend of mine who used to produce 'The Avengers' in the late '60s
was writing a screenplay which contained quite a lot of material about
the church's suppression of women and, indeed, men who were
non-conformist. I was typing it out for him. This was in about 1983 and
I was in my early twenties then. He showed me all the material he had
collected. Fascinating, and very disturbing. I spent a lot of time
crying and getting angry while I was typing that out, I can tell you. It
certainly opened my eyes to a lot of things. John died before it was
finished but I'm sure it would have been a powerful work (had it been
shown!). Apparently, in the late 15th century, in France, so many stakes
were prepared for mass burnings that it looked like small woods had
sprung up out of the ground overnight. That would have made a powerful
scene although I imagine many people would deny its truth.
But you know, it still shocks and saddens me that someone I don't know,
who enters a discussion with me and others on a newsgroup, who purports
to be a Christian, can say nothing better than "you are a f***cking
bitch". I suppose that just about sums up why I am not a Christian. If
one is intelligent, one can easily put two and two together and one
realises early on in the game that the bible just does not add up. If my
saying that offends, well, perhaps the bible offends me. And much of it
does. And I have a right to be offended by it, if I so wish. If people
on uk.rec.birdwatching or uk.rec.anythingelse don't like to hear the
opinions of others who think differently to them, perhaps they should
start uk.rec.christian-birdwatching.
My philosophy in life is to 'do unto others as I would have done unto
myself'. I do not kill, unlike many Christians. I rescue creatures that
need help, I welcome them into my garden and feed them and provide water
and shelter. I have sat with badgers, have had a family of hedgehogs
living in my garden, and have nuthatches, Jays, and even a young
Sparrowhawk (just sitting and watching) regularly in my garden. In fact,
I try to live up to what Francis of Assisi would have wanted:
"Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to
them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission--to be
of service to them whenever they require it."
He also said this, which I also believe:
"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the
shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise
with their fellow men."
Amen to that. If all that makes me a f***ing bitch, well, then I'm
confused, but undaunted. So be it.
(o)(o)
Proven, time and tiome again.
>Amen to that. If all that makes me a f***ing bitch, well, then I'm
>confused, but undaunted. So be it.
It makes you a good person. Don't lower your standards, to that of the
bullies in life.
Mike
news:iqnrr2h7cruvmo6sg...@4ax.com...
>
> It makes you a good person. Don't lower your standards, to that of the
> bullies in life.
>
>
Very well said :-))
You might include those who try to put you down and look down on you feeling
they are so superior as well :-))
Mike
equal to all superior to none
--
..........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com