can anyone come up with a pro for the CA (other than membership pros)?
Gareth Crawshaw
What does the royal one need to do to get the population and govt
(especially govt and lord/parliament etc...) to take its thumb outa its
backside to ignore and get over the hunters(wd) ? The more I read and more
arguments (and constructive debate, hmmm) with people.... How is it that the
more disinterested people become in the whole CA march thing, the more the
disinterest seems to serve their purpose...
The CA doesn't give a toss about bona-fide rural UK society (which y'all
know)... the more disinterested the world becomes with rural soc because of
its boredom with the hunting(wd) debate, the less the CA has to do blah blah
blah...
Fcuk it... Bleedin' CA. Time to try (again) to get them involved in a debate
about their use to society and prove that they are more than a waste of
skin...
G.
Robin Carmody
news:arm7rd$j7k5f$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de...
> Damnit! http://www.countryside-alliance.org/
>
> How is it that the
> more disinterested people become in the whole CA march thing, the more the
> disinterest seems to serve their purpose...
>
> The CA doesn't give a toss about bona-fide rural UK society (which y'all
> know)... the more disinterested the world becomes with rural soc because
of
> its boredom with the hunting(wd) debate, the less the CA has to do blah
blah
> blah...
Quite. The more gullible media people use the phrase "countryside" when
they mean "hunting with dogs" (that is the *real* scandal), the easier it is
for people to think "I'm bored about hunting, ergo I'm bored with the
countryside" and the easier it is for the CA set to go on treating rural
society as most people experience it with thinly-veiled contempt and
disdain.
> Fcuk it... Bleedin' CA. Time to try (again) to get them involved in a
debate
> about their use to society and prove that they are more than a waste of
> skin...
They won't rise to the challenge, you know. Even their greatest defender on
ukpm (Marc Living, now thankfully departed unless he's lurking - hi Marc!)
never pretended that they were anything other than essentially a
single-issue pro-hunting group.
Like you say, the more they faff around abusing and misusing the language,
the harder it is to get a proper debate on the future of our rural
infrastructure under way. I shouldn't be too scared about their long-term
chances, though - remember that letter from The Times which I posted last
month, the broadband internet one which had Bruce E Bonus missing every
point imaginable? When even The Times - at least as serious an offender as
the Telegraph and the Mail when it comes to misuse of the term "countryside"
as a shorthand for the hunting yawnathon - publishes such an unequivocally
rural realist letter, you know the game will be up for the CA soon enough.
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Steve Glynn
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:arn1ue$ca5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
Out of interest, chaps, may I ask what your comments on a pretty ginormous
march in favour of a cause with which you did agree might be?
Possibly 'Sputter, splutter, a small group of politically motivated
agitators, completely out of touch with public opinion, and I must write to
the Daily Mail about it. That Tony Blair should do something about it'?
If you want to argue about hunting with hounds, then fair enough. I'll
give you a reasonably coherent counter-argument, since us Liberal Bigots who
try to be reasonably consistent in our views do tend to follow the principle
that it's not a particularly good idea to ban anything, no matter who much
we might dislike it, unless there's a convincing reason so to do.
The fact that you would not choose to socialise with the members of your
local hunt or that they don't invite you to the Hunt Ball ('And I wouldn't
dream of attending even if they did ask me, so there! I'm off to listen to
some "hip-hop" music SO THERE!, and then you'll all be sorry!!!') does not
really cut it, does it?
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 14/11/02
Robin Carmody
news:arnq1b$kbbij$2...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Out of interest, chaps, may I ask what your comments on a pretty ginormous
> march in favour of a cause with which you did agree might be?
If I thought it was run by two-faced hypocrites, I would condemn it as such.
The CA march was risible from the start because it was run by a clique who
endlessly talk about "preserving the traditional rural way of life" while
also supporting free-market economics.
Gareth Crawshaw
"Huge" <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
news:arocrd$hdi$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aro834$hfg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Robin Carmody"
No. That many people turned up to march about protecting civil liberties
etc... The massive campaign the CA had around the entire nation prior to the
march gained it massive exposure. While it is a good thing to see 400,000
people marching to protect their freedom, it is a sickening fact that the CA
was able to twist the media into interpreting and publicising the support
the event received as direct support for the single issue that the CA is
interested in.
400,000 people did not march in order to promote or protect the future of
hunting(wd), they were there for far more banal reasons: as with the
majority of the nation, the rural population, they are fed up with rising
taxes and lack of funding - more and more rural services are being cut and
not so much to bolster larger urban services, but in order that fewer urban
services have to be cut...
Gareth
Steve Glynn
You're clearly better informed about the CA's views on economics than am I.
However, what to you find so two-faced and hypocritical about what you take
to be their views? I've got no problems in reconciling my views that the
free market is the best way to run high-street shops and that it isn't a
particularly smart way to run the NHS. You might disagree with either or
both those propositions, but there doesn't seem to be any logical
contradiction between them.
Other than the facts that you clearly don't like the idea of hunting -- and
I don't see the attraction either -- and that you don't agree with what you
take to be the views of the CA's leadership on rural economics and that
you'd probably decline an invitation to a hunt ball since you'd rather
listen to 'hip-hop', what's your problem with hunting?
There's no end of things I can't see the attraction of, ranging from
sky-diving to being a Jehovah's Witness to getting various intimate body
parts pierced, but so long as no one asks me to participate in such
activities I don't see why anyone should want them banned without producing
a compelling argument for so doing.
Robin Carmody
>
> However, what to you find so two-faced and hypocritical about what you
take
> to be their views?
When Britain had restrictions on the scale of free-market economics (the
Macmillan government was much more psychologically socialist than NuLab,
however curious that might initially sound) we still had a rural society
largely based on the traditional model. I have a lot of written material,
old music press interviews, TV documentaries and the like from the early
1970s that prove this to me. The erosion of rural traditions and customs,
which had previously been happening but at a much slower pace and on a
smaller scale, only really accelerated after the political and cultural
earthquake of 1979. The ringleaders of the Countryside Alliance almost
invariably supported the Tory party as it was doing these things ... *now*
do you get my point, Steve?
> Other than the facts that you clearly don't like the idea of hunting --
and
> I don't see the attraction either -- and that you don't agree with what
you
> take to be the views of the CA's leadership on rural economics and that
> you'd probably decline an invitation to a hunt ball since you'd rather
> listen to 'hip-hop',
Why the inverted commas, Steve? It might, of course, be a subliminal
pastiche of how CA people would write it :).
> what's your problem with hunting?
I consider it immoral to set vast gangs of people, horses and dogs on
individual, defenceless animals. It certainly does not merit the
description "sport".
Robin Carmody
news:arocrd$hdi$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aro834$hfg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Robin Carmody"
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
No, see Gareth's post. It is however true that certain prime movers in the
CA endlessly blame the current government for what the Tories did to the
countryside.
Mel Rowing
> Steve Glynn <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:arojcq$jquvh$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> I consider it immoral to set vast gangs of people, horses and dogs on
> individual, defenceless animals. It certainly does not merit the
> description "sport".
Interesting!
How do you reconcile that with this:
"I'll stop opposing hunting when the hunt fraternity stop opposing hip-hop
as
an "alien cultural invasion" (and they do, oh they do). Fair's fair."
Mel Rowing
Gareth Crawshaw
> In article <aroeoi$kej1v$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> >"Huge" <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:arocrd$hdi$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> >> That'll be why 400,000 people turned up, is it?
> >
> >No. That many people turned up to march about protecting civil liberties
> >etc... The massive campaign the CA had around the entire nation prior to
the
> >march gained it massive exposure. While it is a good thing to see 400,000
> >people marching to protect their freedom, it is a sickening fact that the
CA
> >was able to twist the media into interpreting and publicising the
support
> >the event received as direct support for the single issue that the CA is
> >interested in.
>
marmalade
Robin Carmody
> In article <aroeoi$kej1v$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
>
> >> That'll be why 400,000 people turned up, is it?
> >
> >No. That many people turned up to march about protecting civil liberties
> >etc... The massive campaign the CA had around the entire nation prior to
the
> >march gained it massive exposure. While it is a good thing to see 400,000
> >people marching to protect their freedom, it is a sickening fact that the
CA
> >was able to twist the media into interpreting and publicising the
support
> >the event received as direct support for the single issue that the CA is
> >interested in.
>
Actually, I thought Gareth hit the nail on the head on this one. I know
many people who went on the march because it was the least worst platform
they had, not because they particularly shared the ethos of its ringleaders.
Indeed, many others such as myself, who like the *idea* of a countryside
march and wanted to support rural issues in general, decided not to go
because we didn't want to be confused with the hunting-obsessed ringleaders.
Robin Carmody
> In article <aroeoi$kej1v$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
>
> >> That'll be why 400,000 people turned up, is it?
> >
> >No. That many people turned up to march about protecting civil liberties
> >etc... The massive campaign the CA had around the entire nation prior to
the
> >march gained it massive exposure. While it is a good thing to see 400,000
> >people marching to protect their freedom, it is a sickening fact that the
CA
> >was able to twist the media into interpreting and publicising the
support
> >the event received as direct support for the single issue that the CA is
> >interested in.
>
Robin Carmody
news:arp14g$ddp$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
That was a flip comment made in a moment of desperation. My comment earlier
today concerning the essential cruelty of hunting is a far more accurate
description of my views.
Mel Rowing
Flip? .... seems that it contains emotional overtones to me. Never mind!
We'll let that one pass!
However, you do leave a problem here.
If you are to resort to flippance in a moment of desperation then how are we
to know when you are serious?
To put it another way, how do we know that your most previous remark that,
to me at any rate, seems to carry overtones of flippance, was not made yet
another moment of desperation?
To save a lot of beating around the bushes, I'll set my cards on the table.
You do not care a monkey's about hunting one way or the other. Your
objection is to people who hunt. I find this quite a lot when I confront
hunting objectors and attempt to restore them to honesty. They go on more
about the hunters than they do about the hunting.
Mel Rowing
Gareth Crawshaw
> In article <arpo5r$l3j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Robin Carmody"
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:arp2e2$m3c$2...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <aroeoi$kej1v$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
> ><Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
[snip]
> I failed to make myself clear. This bit; "it is a sickening fact that
> the CA was able to twist the media into interpreting and publicising
> the support the event received as direct support for the single issue
> that the CA is interested in" is (doubly) bullshit.
It is not bullshit. The media focussed wholly on the fox hunting(wd) aspect
of the event. Journalists targetted obvious pro hunting(wd) interviewees
(dressed in their hunting gear and blowing their horns) giving them the
perfect opportunity to claim that everyone of the 400,000+ people at the
march were there in suppport of hunting(wd). It's sickening in the respect
that the media let itself be so ridiculously exposed and broadcast the idea
that everyone was there to support the pro hunting(wd) lobby. Not once was
anybody asked about any social or economic issues not directly related to
hunting(wd)...
Implied in the reports was the idea that hunting(wd) is an important part of
rural life. It isn't a part of my life the lives of many more millions of
people in the rural UK than the 40,000 (I think) people involved in it. For
a substantial amount of this year, the phrase "Not in my name" has been
bandied around about the US/uk and Iraq... Whether you support going to war
or not, people have a voice and they are saying "Mr Blair, I disagree with
your policy". Blair isn't speaking for the whole of the UK population and
neither is the Countryside Alliance speaking for the whole of rural society,
as much as they would like to have you believe it. It's sickening that as a
result of the CA's manipulation of the media, anti-hunting(wd) in urban
areas might be given the impression that everyone in rural society wants to
hunt.
Is it a question of being anti-hunting? With dogs or without? Yes and no.
Hunting(wd) is an incredibly inefficient way to keep on top of pest control.
So, as we all know, it is bloodlust on the part of a national minority.
Don't have a problem with pest control if that is what in fact is going
on... Nothing will convince me that that is the case...
There are loads of media pages available covering the march... A thirty
second search and cutting the list short because it really is very boring...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2273002.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2268897.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2269890.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274269.stm
I know I restricted my search to the BBC, but that is what the majority of
people get to see in their homes... Any comment about social or economic
issues are strictly secondary if mentioned at all... Seems to me that the
world would be better off without the CA. As long as the hunting(wd) issue
is still open, the CA isn't going to go away...
I think our MPs need a little encouragement to get things moving... Found
two great links:
Find out who your local MP is: http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/
Fax your local MP direct for free: http://www.faxyourmp.com/
So, anyway, getting back to the original question which was "can anyone come
up with a pro for the CA"... still no answer...
Gareth.
Gareth Crawshaw
> In article <arqjdq$kora6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> >"Huge" <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:arqabo$1di$2...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <arpo5r$l3j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Robin Carmody"
> ><ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >> >Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:arp2e2$m3c$2...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> In article <aroeoi$kej1v$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth
Crawshaw"
> >> ><Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I failed to make myself clear. This bit; "it is a sickening fact that
> >> the CA was able to twist the media into interpreting and publicising
> >> the support the event received as direct support for the single issue
> >> that the CA is interested in" is (doubly) bullshit.
> >
> >It is not bullshit. The media focussed wholly on the fox hunting(wd)
aspect
> >of the event.
>
Perhaps this is more of an indictment of the media than the CA...
> Your obsession with this topic blinds you to the reality. That's called
> "bigotry", BTW.
Not sure about the reality bit, but you're right... there's more to real
rural issues than the CA...
Gareth.
Steve Glynn
> Steve Glynn <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:arojcq$jquvh$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > However, what to you find so two-faced and hypocritical about what you
> take
> > to be their views?
>
> When Britain had restrictions on the scale of free-market economics (the
> Macmillan government was much more psychologically socialist than NuLab,
> however curious that might initially sound) we still had a rural society
> largely based on the traditional model. I have a lot of written material,
> old music press interviews, TV documentaries and the like from the early
> 1970s that prove this to me. The erosion of rural traditions and customs,
> which had previously been happening but at a much slower pace and on a
> smaller scale, only really accelerated after the political and cultural
> earthquake of 1979. The ringleaders of the Countryside Alliance almost
> invariably supported the Tory party as it was doing these things ... *now*
> do you get my point, Steve?
>
Not really. The fact that I've never (as I recall) voted anything but
Labour doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything a Labour
government has ever done. I'm willing to bet that a fair number of
members of the Fire Brigades Union voted Labour last time and that they
aren't too impressed with the way the government has handled the current pay
dispute.
I don't think this necessarily makes striking firefighters two faced or
hypocritical. In the real world, as opposed to the world of political
rhetoric, people very rarely support everything any party does.
Furthermore, governments do get things wrong from time to time, and actions
sometimes have unlookedfor consequences.
> > Other than the facts that you clearly don't like the idea of hunting --
> and
> > I don't see the attraction either -- and that you don't agree with what
> you
> > take to be the views of the CA's leadership on rural economics and that
> > you'd probably decline an invitation to a hunt ball since you'd rather
> > listen to 'hip-hop',
>
> Why the inverted commas, Steve? It might, of course, be a subliminal
> pastiche of how CA people would write it :).
>
Not subliminal at all. And please don't try to explain to me what hip-hop
music actually is. In return, I'll refrain from trying to explain the
plots of most grand operas and the mysteries of contemporary jazz.
> > what's your problem with hunting?
>
> I consider it immoral to set vast gangs of people, horses and dogs on
> individual, defenceless animals. It certainly does not merit the
> description "sport".
>
The fact that you consider something immoral isn't -- unless you happen to
be a member of the Taleban -- usually considered sufficient reason to ban
it. I don't think adultery is a particularly moral activity, but it
doesn't mean I think it would be a bright idea to make it a criminal
offence.
The RSPB aren't particularly keen on the effects keeping domestic cats has
on the bird population, and certainly the way my two moggies deal with birds
or small rodents they happen to catch doesn't look particularly humane.
No one's proposing, though, a ban on the keeping of domestic cats.
That's the crux of the argument. To my mind, it's usually a bad idea to
ban anything unless you can produce pretty pressing reasons for so doing.
The idea of fox hunting doesn't particularly appeal to me. On the other
hand, I've never actually seen a fox hunt and I don't particularly enjoy
riding, so maybe I'm not the best person to asks for authoratative views on
the matter. The Burnes (?) Committee spent a good deal of time and money
investigating the matter and came to the conclusion that hunting with hounds
is so much more cruel a way of controlling the fox population than any other
that it's worth criminalising it.
Certainly it seems illogical to ban hunting while continuing to allow the
poisoning of foxes, a practice that I could give you several pretty
convincing arguments for banning.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 15/11/02
Michael Saunby
>
snip
> I know I restricted my search to the BBC, but that is what the majority
of
> people get to see in their homes...
And on the evening after the march one of the members of the crowd
interviewed on the main BBC TV news was Noel Edmonds - grew up in London,
now lives in Devon, and as far as I'm aware no member of his family hunts.
He does however support farming and rural issues and was very critical of
DEFRA during foot and mouth last year.
Oh, and the president of the CPRE was on the march too.
> So, anyway, getting back to the original question which was "can anyone
come
> up with a pro for the CA"... still no answer...
>
The biggest pro for me has to be that those who oppose the CA most strongly
are quite clearly the last people who should have any say in how the
countryside is regulated, managed, developed, etc. This puts most of the
present government in that category - which seems a fair test of whether my
belief might be justified.
So far all I've seen from CA critics is the view that an organisation with
roots other than in hunting might be a better place to start in campaigning
for better treatment of rural people. I can't argue with that principle,
but I can't see any such group coming forward in the immediate future. Can
you? So for the sake of getting on with what must be done, and it must be
done now, then the CA is the best hope. Granted it's not much of a hope,
but it's still better than hanging everything on an obsession with
broadband internet or a ban on second homes, or whatever issue the rural
loony fringe support today. If your dislike of hunting is so great that it
prevents you from working towards a better future for the countryside
because your desire to prevent others from hunting outweighs all other
benefits from working with others for common benefit, then my guess is that
your exclusion isn't actually much of a loss.
Can you show me any group who might somehow save rural UK from bad laws,
inappropriate development, and economic collapse who have publicly
criticised the CA? That a few loons on Usenet feel rural people might do
better to give their support to the RSPCA, or whatever, as the saviours of
the countryside doesn't make it so - indeed once more it suggests to me
that the CA are mostly likely correct in their approach.
Michael Saunby
Mel Rowing
"Gareth Crawshaw" <Gareth_...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:arqjdq$kora6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de...
>
come
> up with a pro for the CA"... still no answer...
How about the fact that it is a legal organisation that large numbers of
people wish and find the need to show some support whatever the reason?
They are not fools who can be deceived and misled into believing that the
organisation stands for other things that it purports to any more than are
members of the politcal parties. Indeed if the latter served their function
as channels of expression then there might well be no case for a CA in which
event it might not have taken root.
The hunting issue does form a central plank of the CA agenda even if not the
only plank. The association of the CA with the foxhunting fraternity is so
obvious and open that only the blind and deaf could be unaware of its
existance. It may well be that not every one of the people who were in
London were in fact there to support the cause of foxhunting. The vast
majority of them were more than aware of the place of hunting on the rural
agenda. Clearly its presence there, did not deter them.
The trouble with you people is that you assume that everyone who does not
hunt in some way holds antagonisms or even reservations regarding the
activity. The truth is more likely to be that the vast bulk of the Great
British public could not give a toss. I think that this has been evidenced
by the continuing reversing trend in opinion polls on the subject as time
passes. Not so very long ago the abolisionist argument was enjoying over
65% support. It is now rare to see a poll indicating more than 50%. The
battle seems almost lost but the debate is being won. IDS would kill to
achieve such an impact. The extent to which the CA has contributed to this
impact must, of course, remain speculative. However, since they have been
the near only pro-hunting voice ......
There should however, be no debate. In general terms the debate has been won
many times. I mean by this that the issue rounds down to personal freedoms.
It's about the freedom to live a private life. A life according to one's own
choosing with the sole reservation that it does not in any way impinge upon
similar rights and freedoms of others. That principle applies whether you
ride to hounds or not which again might be a reason as to why some
associates of the CA don't find their policy towards foxhunting so
alienating.
I'm afraid I find double standards operating within this group with regard
to this question.
I have no wish to broaden the argument but is no logic in you, as certain
individuals, vehemently objecting to proposals such as the introduction of
ID cards, the interception or storage of your e-mails (to name but two) as
dangers to your persoanl liberties when you are prepared to deny similar
liberties to others. There is no credance in bemoaning homophobia,
xenophobia, racism as offensive to minorites. The hunting fraternity are a
minority too.
It may well be that they are at least perceived to be an exclusive minority
and that perhaps is the real fact which will underlie their undoing.
Mel Rowing
Gareth Crawshaw
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:arqrhg$pj3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Can't argue with the moajority of that: one point though is that the Max
Hastings and Noel Edmonds wouldn't have had a opportunity to express their
opinions had it not been for the march. Their position on hunting(wd) is
neutral, i.e. they do not want to alienate/antagonise the CA or any
significant party that the CA might curry favour.
> Can you show me any group who might somehow save rural UK from bad laws,
> inappropriate development, and economic collapse who have publicly
> criticised the CA? That a few loons on Usenet feel rural people might do
> better to give their support to the RSPCA, or whatever, as the saviours of
> the countryside doesn't make it so - indeed once more it suggests to me
> that the CA are mostly likely correct in their approach.
I don't claim to be a political expert nor a one man army ready and able to
take on the nation single handed. Neither am I foolish enough to believe
that Usenet is populated with political and economic experts capable of
single handedly tackling equally and fairly both rural and urban issues .
BUT, there are established groups, such as that you mention, the CPRE and
um, um... An awful lot of single interest groups out there, but a search for
social and economic interest groups keeps returning DEFRA (of which I notice
that CPRE is a member of the Rural Affairs Forum
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020410b.htm) and little else...
If these Usenet postings do nothing other than give pointers to Usenet users
where they can easily let their opinion be heard both on Usenet and back in
reality by showing people how they can get in touch with the people that
count, then it is time well spent. I for one know that I have benefited
from knowledge gain this last few months by nosing around here... Getting
back to the CA, they seem to be reducing the relevance of people like the
CPRE because their very well promoted (and well known) single issue detracts
from the problems face by rural society...
Gareth.
Robin Carmody
All very well argued, but the point is that the Conservative Party has
continually presented itself as *both* a rural-traditionalist party *and* a
thrusting-suburban-free-marketeer party. This is not something its main
political opposition has ever done (substitute
"urban-area-created-by-the-Industrial-Revolution-traditionalist" for
"rural-traditionalist", obviously).
Once the Labour Party had been converted to free-market economics, it
abandoned its traditional affinity with a fixed, socially and culturally
conservative idea of certain parts of the country, in their case mainly
South Yorkshire, the north-east of England, Liverpool, the South Wales
valleys and the Scottish central belt. It had the common sense to realise
that portraying itself as the party of traditional heartland interests while
simultaneously being a business-led party appealing to everyone was
ridiculous, so it basically abandoned any hints of being Old Labour. As
long ago as 1963, Wilson made it eminently clear in his "white heat of
technology" conference speech that, if he became prime minister, he would
not be afraid to dramatically shake up old ways of working and trade union
organisation. I admire Labour for making these gestures; they were signs of
political honesty and integrity. Thatcher lacked these virtues.
And this is the thing, as far as I can see it: Thatcher, who changed Britain
and changed the heartland territory of her party in particular arguably even
more than either Wilson or Blair, never made her equivalent of the "white
heat of technology" speech, or Blair's similarly-conceived, crusading
conference speeches while he was opposition leader. She succeeded in
fooling Tories that she believed in the conservation of their social,
cultural, political and employment traditions. Blair, to his credit, never
even tried playing the same trick on traditional socialists, and nor did
Wilson on the whole (obviously his government was more psychologically
socialist than Blair's, but then, as I said above, even the Macmillan
government was psychologically socialist by modern standards IMHO).
Although I would never vote Tory, I would admire them far more if they had
done the same thing under Thatcher as Labour have done under Blair, ie fully
disassociate themselves from the image of being the party of rural
traditions and customs to be defended from "the urban jackboot" (I hate that
phrase). William Hague would have earned my respect, if not my vote, had he
not pretended that the Tories were anything more or less than the party of
big business. Instead, he positioned the party as a rural-traditionalist
movement, which in the light of what they had done when in office made them
seem deeply, profoundly absurd.
The fact of the matter is that, if Thatcherism had never happened, I would
not be able to do many of the things I do which are detrimental to the
traditional order of rural society. This is why I cannot understand why
that woman is still such an icon for so many of the ruralist right.
Robin Carmody
>
> The trouble with you people is that you assume that everyone who does not
> hunt in some way holds antagonisms or even reservations regarding the
> activity. The truth is more likely to be that the vast bulk of the Great
> British public could not give a toss. I think that this has been
evidenced
> by the continuing reversing trend in opinion polls on the subject as time
> passes. Not so very long ago the abolisionist argument was enjoying over
> 65% support. It is now rare to see a poll indicating more than 50%. The
> battle seems almost lost but the debate is being won.
That is because people are *bored* with the issue and want to see more
genuine rural concerns being debated. I oppose hunting, but part of me
wishes Labour hadn't made such a thing about banning it in 1997.
Robin Carmody
news:arqrhg$pj3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> interviewed on the main BBC TV news was Noel Edmonds - grew up in London,
> now lives in Devon, and as far as I'm aware no member of his family hunts.
> He does however support farming and rural issues and was very critical of
> DEFRA
*pedantry*
Still MAFF at the time.
> during foot and mouth last year.
But he is famous. Everyone knows who he is. He is hardly *representative*
of general rural concerns.
> So far all I've seen from CA critics is the view that an organisation with
> roots other than in hunting might be a better place to start in
campaigning
> for better treatment of rural people. I can't argue with that principle,
> but I can't see any such group coming forward in the immediate future.
Can
> you?
I can, actually.
Groups with a broad membership and a broad brief but an essentially
obsessive, single-issue leadership have a way of spawning more centralist,
middle-ground organisations without the single-issue fixation. That is
essentially how the SDP grew out of the old Labour party, and whatever you
might say about the SDP, I do think they've had a long-term influence in
shifting the whole tone of British politics from centre-right to
centre-left.
(incidentally, Michael, I'm not "obsessed" with broadband internet, other
than for self-interested reasons as a file-sharing junkie; I just find it
*interesting* that the Tories have chosen to campaign on the issue, in the
same way that I'd have found it interesting if Neil Kinnock had started
encouraging multinationals to move to South Yorkshire in 1984.)
Robin Carmody
>
> Can't argue with the moajority of that: one point though is that the Max
> Hastings and Noel Edmonds wouldn't have had a opportunity to express their
> opinions had it not been for the march. Their position on hunting(wd) is
> neutral,
Erm ... Hastings is not neutral on hunting, unless he's changed while I've
been looking the other way. He once wrote a whole book full of High
Romantic Tory waxings lyrical on the joy of a day in the field. When editor
of the Daily Telegraph he took a staunch rural-traditionalist position which
resulted in his editorials often opposing Thatcherite monetarism - this was
around 1987/88.
> If these Usenet postings do nothing other than give pointers to Usenet
users
> where they can easily let their opinion be heard both on Usenet and back
in
> reality by showing people how they can get in touch with the people that
> count, then it is time well spent. I for one know that I have benefited
> from knowledge gain this last few months by nosing around here... Getting
> back to the CA, they seem to be reducing the relevance of people like the
> CPRE because their very well promoted (and well known) single issue
detracts
> from the problems face by rural society...
Quite. I've learnt a lot on here as well.
My problem is not that I don't want to start a "Rural Realist Movement" or
something along those lines, but I don't know how to get these things
started ... the CA's ringleaders have the advantage of money and power. I
don't. How would I get it off the ground? I am genuinely inquisitive to
know. Even if it failed (and I don't think it would; I know many people who
love the *idea* of a countryside alliance but not the group who currently
take that name) I'd like to give it a try.
Anyone here ever formed, or been involved with, a broad-based pressure group
along those lines?
Gareth Crawshaw
> Gareth Crawshaw <Gareth_...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:arr884$lkgvc$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Can't argue with the moajority of that: one point though is that the Max
> > Hastings and Noel Edmonds wouldn't have had a opportunity to express
their
> > opinions had it not been for the march. Their position on hunting(wd) is
> > neutral,
>
> Erm ... Hastings is not neutral on hunting, unless he's changed while I've
> been looking the other way.
From the cpre website:
http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/pub/pdfs/policy-position-statements/hunting
.pdf Perhaps he has modified his opinions in order to try and keep
respectability?
Gareth
Mel Rowing
> Getting back to the CA, they seem to be reducing the relevance of people
like the
> CPRE because their very well promoted (and well known) single issue
detracts
> from the problems face by rural society...
I have being trying off and on to point out that two different images of
the CA are being promoted by the same group of people. Either the CA is a
single issue force or it is not.
If it is then clearly events in London this September show a level of
support for that issue that surprises even me.
If it is not then it is dishonest to project the CA as a single issue lobby
organisation.
We have peoplthis discussion who on the one hand dismiss the CA as "The
Field Sports Association in disguise" and then when 400 000 turn up to one
of its rallies, dismiss this in terms of "well they are not all hunt
supporters".
As usual they want their argument both ways.
The countryside does indeed have its problems I will give you a couple of
examples.
I live in a village which is dependent upon a private water supply provided
by the Forestry Commission ( A government agency no less!). It was brought
to our attention that this supply was being contaminated with effluent from
a toilet block built by the FC to accomodate the needs of tourists. E Coli
had actually been found in the water.
The response of the Government Agency in question was in essence " Do
something about it yourselves. Fit individual UVdisinfectors or drink boiled
and/or bottled water." "Not our problem!"
The response of our elected repesentatives? We will support you in any legal
initiative that you take but we have not money in our budget to seek legal
redress against the FC on your behalf. Thank God that we had sufficient
"immigrant" legal expertise in the village and a Drinking Water
Inspectorate. Without either we might, in the UK of 2002, have still been
drinking someone else's shit .
That is an illustration of the indifference shown by public officials
towards small rural communities.
Then there is the question of regionalisation. If plans go ahead we shall
be lumped with the conurbation of Teeside. Frankly we have more in common
with the Peak District, The Lake District or even the Brecon Beacons. Is it
not obvious that the problems of Teeside are of a different order
altogetther than ours? How are our priorities going to be ranked against
those of our several times more populous 'protector'?
Yes there will be a referendum but it's the votes of Teeside that are going
to carry the day.
That is an illustration of the level of weight our voices carry and the
interest and respect that is held for what we have to say.
Mel Rowing
Gareth Crawshaw
>
> "Gareth Crawshaw" <Gareth_...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:arr884$lkgvc$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Getting back to the CA, they seem to be reducing the relevance of people
> like the
> > CPRE because their very well promoted (and well known) single issue
> detracts
> > from the problems face by rural society...
>
> I have being trying off and on to point out that two different images of
> the CA are being promoted by the same group of people. Either the CA is a
> single issue force or it is not.
One of the problems here is that the CA forced the hunting issue, had a
massive nationwide things about promoting the march etc... etc... Fine. It
attracted an enormous number of people to London for the march, which is a
good thing given that the march was ostensibly for promoting and protecting
rural wellbeing...
Many people were there to say "hey government, don't forget the social
welfare of rural UL" Good. The other side was the reported side that showed
the number of people interviewed who said "just goes to show how many people
support hunting(wd)" Two very different things...
Gareth.
Robin Carmody
Quite possibly. Of course a hunting ban was not on the agenda when Hastings
was editing the Torygraph ... actually, now I remember it, Max Hastings
was/is more of a shooting type. It's been a long time, but I think the
ridiculously over-romantic, obsessive book on "country pursuits" that came
to my mind was Hastings' hymn to shooting, rather than hunting.
Robin Carmody
>
> You do not care a monkey's about hunting one way or the other.
Not true, I think it's cruel, barbaric and outmoded. I would feel
that way whatever the socioeconomic profile of those who took part in
it.
Michael Saunby
Both men have had, and used, plenty of opportunities to express their
opinions on rural issue with their own existing organisations, associations
and access to the media - yet both chose to join the march; similarly for
many MPs and other prominent rural people hunters and non-hunters. The
only people who have been very critical of the CA are those who are
strongly anti hunting.
>
> > Can you show me any group who might somehow save rural UK from bad
laws,
> > inappropriate development, and economic collapse who have publicly
> > criticised the CA? That a few loons on Usenet feel rural people might
do
> > better to give their support to the RSPCA, or whatever, as the saviours
of
> > the countryside doesn't make it so - indeed once more it suggests to me
> > that the CA are mostly likely correct in their approach.
>
> I don't claim to be a political expert nor a one man army ready and able
to
> take on the nation single handed. Neither am I foolish enough to believe
> that Usenet is populated with political and economic experts capable of
> single handedly tackling equally and fairly both rural and urban issues .
> BUT, there are established groups, such as that you mention, the CPRE and
> um, um... An awful lot of single interest groups out there, but a search
for
> social and economic interest groups keeps returning DEFRA (of which I
notice
> that CPRE is a member of the Rural Affairs Forum
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020410b.htm) and little else...
The forums are intended to be inclussive and will include representatives
from organisations with very different views, e.g. the LACS will have
people in forums dealing with hunting, as will the hunts. This is the way
government works with single issue groups. As for CPRE, it is a single
issue group.
>
> If these Usenet postings do nothing other than give pointers to Usenet
users
> where they can easily let their opinion be heard both on Usenet and back
in
> reality by showing people how they can get in touch with the people that
> count, then it is time well spent. I for one know that I have benefited
> from knowledge gain this last few months by nosing around here... Getting
> back to the CA, they seem to be reducing the relevance of people like the
> CPRE because their very well promoted (and well known) single issue
detracts
> from the problems face by rural society...
>
The fact that the CA has been able to get so much support seems to
demonstrates how feeble existing rural groups have been. For example the
CPRE could easily reduce itself to an anti-airport organisation.
Michael Saunby
Mel Rowing
> One of the problems here is that the CA forced the hunting issue, had a
> massive nationwide things about promoting the march etc... etc... Fine. It
> attracted an enormous number of people to London for the march, which is a
> good thing given that the march was ostensibly for promoting and
protecting
> rural wellbeing...
> Many people were there to say "hey government, don't forget the social
> welfare of rural UL" Good. The other side was the reported side that
showed
> the number of people interviewed who said "just goes to show how many
people
> support hunting(wd)" Two very different things...
Of course they are!
However, the fact that the CA provided a platform for pro-hunting lobbyists
is not denied. I would go further. But for the controversy over hunting
there would be no CA.
Where I would take issue is that the anti-hunting lobby seek to negate the
impact of the march by trying to have the argument both ways. First by
berating the CA as unrepresentative of rural opinion and being a dishonest
guise of pro-hunting groups "The Field Sports Association under another
name" remember?
The when 400 000 give up a day and travel many miles at their own expense to
make their presence felt, all of a sudden it becomes more benign and
socially acceptable. "It isn't all about foxhunting" they say.
Had 400 rather than 400 000 turned up what would be the spin then I wonder?
I can only reiterate that it is likely that those people who took part in
that rally were aware of the position of the sponsoring organisation in
relation to fox hunting and everything else. It may well be that the issue
of foxhunting was not the prime motive behind the actions of some or indeed
many of them. However, next to none of them could have been unaware of the
central position of this issue on the CA agenda. Their alleged antipathy
was not sufficient to deter them as the RSPCA's position on the same issue
deterred me from continuing to subscribe to that organisation.
If you say I am wrong then then I argue you are suggesting that these people
were misguided fools who went to considerable trouble and some expense to
embark upon an errand they new little or nothing about.
I have more confidence in the good sense of my fellow citizens.
Mel Rowing
Mel Rowing
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<arqbe7$5he$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
> >
> > You do not care a monkey's about hunting one way or the other.
>
> Not true, I think it's cruel, barbaric and outmoded. I would feel
> that way whatever the socioeconomic profile of those who took part in
> it.
OK we must accept that.
However, what you think is hardly the point.
Do you not think that anyone regardless of socio economic status has the
right to lead a private life provided he in no way imposes upon any other's
similar right? If the answer to that is yes do you imagine that a statement
of various value judgement even if collectively held justify the denial of
any such right?
Mel Rowing.
Gareth Crawshaw
>
[snip]
> The forums are intended to be inclussive and will include representatives
> from organisations with very different views, e.g. the LACS will have
> people in forums dealing with hunting, as will the hunts. This is the way
> government works with single issue groups. As for CPRE, it is a single
> issue group.
[snip]
> The fact that the CA has been able to get so much support seems to
> demonstrates how feeble existing rural groups have been. For example the
> CPRE could easily reduce itself to an anti-airport organisation.
Agreed. The question then is whether there are enough single issue groups
that could combine forces to come up with a tenable alliance to have an
influence agreeable to the majority that COULD be a credible voice in all
aspects of political, social and economic areas. Some groups, such as the
LACS and the CA might have a, er, *difficult* time co-existing... While
such influential forces as the CA exists, other rural affairs oriented
pressure groups are going to find a meaningful future difficult. And so we
come full circle... while the CA holds the influence it does, real rural
issues are pushed further and further into the back of peoples' minds...
Do the Rural Affairs Forum members have much influence at DEFRA? I'm looking
all over DEFRA (and there's a lot to look at). I cannot see any reference to
any suggestions/influence of the member groups other than the 10 point
agenda offered by the CA... (which I'm still looking for, if anyone knows
where I can find it?)
Gareth
Steve Glynn
> > In article <aro834$hfg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Robin Carmody"> > >news:arnq1b$kbbij$2...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> > >>
> > >> Out of interest, chaps, may I ask what your comments on a pretty
> ginormous
> > >> march in favour of a cause with which you did agree might be?
> > >
> > >If I thought it was run by two-faced hypocrites, I would condemn it as
> such.
> > >The CA march was risible from the start because it was run by a clique
> who
> > >endlessly talk about "preserving the traditional rural way of life"
while
> > >also supporting free-market economics.
> >
> > That'll be why 400,000 people turned up, is it?
>
the
> CA endlessly blame the current government for what the Tories did to the
> countryside.
>
> Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
>
>
In that case, Robin, please give us a couple of references for what 'certain
prime movers in the CA.... ' and so forth apparently endlessly do.
One of the lesser mistakes, to my mind, that Mrs Thatcher made, was banning
'rave parties' in the countyside, so long as the people on whose land these
parties were taking place did not object and neither did their neighbours.
What, to your mind is worse: a fox hunt in the neighbourhood or an all-night
rave?
Steve
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02
Robin Carmody
>
> Do you not think that anyone regardless of socio economic status has the
> right to lead a private life provided he in no way imposes upon any
other's
> similar right? If the answer to that is yes do you imagine that a
statement
> of various value judgement even if collectively held justify the denial of
> any such right?
But it will always be possible to enjoy a day in the countryside on
horseback with your friends, however frightfully upper-middle-class they may
be. The hunting fraternity usually concede that their pursuit is a social
gathering first, a method of pest control second. The most important
element of hunting for many of those who take part in the pursuit will
therefore be able to continue.
Robin Carmody
>
> The fact that the CA has been able to get so much support seems to
> demonstrates how feeble existing rural groups have been.
Regrettably, this is very true, and I'd be the first to concede that this is
partially why people who are not *massively* concerned about hunting are
still prepared to align themselves with the CA. Gareth's sardonic
"butterfly preserving charities" line comes to mind here.
Robin Carmody
>
> Agreed. The question then is whether there are enough single issue groups
> that could combine forces to come up with a tenable alliance to have an
> influence agreeable to the majority that COULD be a credible voice in all
> aspects of political, social and economic areas.
Probably not while the CA is hogging the media mind, but once the hunting
issue is resolved, I think an alliance of like-minded groups could get
considerable attention. There seem to be enough people out there on our tip
at the moment, Gareth ... they just all seem to be isolated, floating alone,
and maybe they think they're the only ones.
Michael Saunby
>
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:artqqk$83d$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > The forums are intended to be inclussive and will include
representatives
> > from organisations with very different views, e.g. the LACS will have
> > people in forums dealing with hunting, as will the hunts. This is the
way
> > government works with single issue groups. As for CPRE, it is a single
> > issue group.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The fact that the CA has been able to get so much support seems to
> > demonstrates how feeble existing rural groups have been. For example
the
> > CPRE could easily reduce itself to an anti-airport organisation.
>
> Agreed. The question then is whether there are enough single issue groups
> that could combine forces to come up with a tenable alliance to have an
> influence agreeable to the majority that COULD be a credible voice in all
> aspects of political, social and economic areas. Some groups, such as the
> LACS and the CA might have a, er, *difficult* time co-existing...
Why? Political parties with radically different positions on issues manage
to coexist. Sure one tends to be dominant. For a very time there was no
real need for a strong opposition to the LACS, noe there is and such an
organisation has been formed. It's hardly the fault of the CA is the LACS
and similar group turn out to be rather smaller and less effective than
hunting opponents were led to believe. Hopefully no great damage will be
done by having a pro hunting group taking the lead on rural affairs; but it
certainly isn't the CA's fault that they were effectively forced into being
by a government with no capacity to understand rural needs and concerns.
> While
> such influential forces as the CA exists, other rural affairs oriented
> pressure groups are going to find a meaningful future difficult. And so
we
> come full circle... while the CA holds the influence it does, real rural
> issues are pushed further and further into the back of peoples' minds...
Surely rural people are all too aware of the problems and other folks were
never too bothered either way. At least now others are aware that if you
are fool enough to try to ban something that doesn't even happen where you
live then people who are affected will react. Sure, it's common sense and
even young children ought to know at least that much, but these are strange
times we live in.
>
> Do the Rural Affairs Forum members have much influence at DEFRA? I'm
looking
> all over DEFRA (and there's a lot to look at). I cannot see any reference
to
> any suggestions/influence of the member groups other than the 10 point
> agenda offered by the CA... (which I'm still looking for, if anyone knows
> where I can find it?)
>
The 10 point list was quite prominent on the CA website soon after the
march www.archive.org may be able to find it for you.
As for who has much influence at DEFRA - I've no idea. Certainly it's
interesting to consider what such a vast ministry is composed of in terms
of the smaller organisations within it. The bits that control the money
are probably the only parts with any real power at the present time.
Michael Saunby
Robin Carmody
>
> In that case, Robin, please give us a couple of references for what
'certain
> prime movers in the CA.... ' and so forth apparently endlessly do.
Well ... remember the way that Peter and a few of his cohorts were banging
on about the new ultra-right-wing breakaway group from the Tory party, the
Conservative Democratic Alliance?
Their website contains the following article about the CA march, written by
a long-term activist of the ultra-right named Peter Gibbs:
http://conservativedemocrats.20m.com/photo4.html
Let me dissect its deep absurdity. I only quote part of the article, but I
think it's more than enough:
"On Sunday 22nd September 2002, hundreds of thousands of countryside
demonstrators filled the streets of London, mounting the largest ever march
in our political history. Green banners, placards, flags of the United
Kingdom were waved; whistles and hunting horns were blown; huntsmen,
shooters and fishermen joined with organic farmers (the Tories made it
bloody hard for organic farmers to make a living - RC) and the breeders of
rare livestock - this was the voice of dispossessed rural Britain - the
people Tuscany Tony and his rich, free-loading entourage love to hate.
As Peter Simple pointed out in last week's Telegraph - these are the real
people of England - the people who still manage to preserve their character,
culture, customs and style (hmmm ... read Dennis Potter's account of his
journey through the Forest of Dean in 1961; country people were abandoning
such things of their own accord even in the Macmillan era which excites such
passionate nostalgia among romantic Tories like Peter Gibbs - RC) against
the grunge-filled (the musical style called "grunge" was strengthened in the
UK by heavy rotation of Nirvana videos on MTV - now who was it that
deregulated the media so as to allow MTV into this country? Remind me again
...? - RC), amorphous hell-hole of "cool Britannia" and Blairite Britain.
The ever-absent, always-on-holiday Blair knows that he will have to destroy
these people (people already largely destroyed by the brute forces of
Thatcherite monetarism - RC) if he is ever to create his debased,
clingfilmed, shopping malled (*vast* numbers of shopping malls were built
during the Thatcher era; it was a key trend of the time - RC), pop muzak
(pop music became a far more central and dominant part of British culture
during the 18 years of Tory rule - RC), dumbed-down (dumbing down of the
media is rooted in the ultra-Thatcherite Broadcasting Act of 1990 - RC),
total socialist (erm ... none of the above are particularly socialist
tendencies; traditional Labour supporters are very wary of them - RC) state.
So just who can the people of rural Britain turn to - the official
"Conservative Party" - the party of gays and chill-out zones? (and of
course it goes further even than that, Peter - Radio 1 introduced a
programme called The Chill Out Zone entirely because the Tories forced them
to change their format or risk privatisation, and MTV Dance, another product
of the 1990 Broadcasting Act and its aftershocks, also has a strand of that
title ... mmm, like shooting fish in a barrel - RC).
<snip>
Until then, we pay tribute to the Alliance, and to the 400,000 people who
marched for their dignity and livelihoods. We have embarked on nothing less
than a struggle for the continued existence of a vibrant, living
countryside: for customs, sports, people, trades, wildlife and ecology (oh,
really? so which party oversaw the closure of vast numbers of small,
locally-owned rural shops, the invasion of the weekenders and second-homers,
and was perfectly prepared to encourage pollution and general decay of the
countryside, leading to the decline and even extinction of certain forms of
wildllife, through its utter subservience to the agribusiness lobby and
keeping intensive farmers in subsidies from the EU they're supposed to be
against? - RC) - everything, in fact, that's worth living for! Just why
should a British farmer be forced out of business - his children's future
ruined just because he does not fit into the Blairite / EU plan to turn
Britain into a theme park, criss-crossed by motorways? (the building of
motorways across the countryside was started in the Macmillan era and
continued at pace throughout Thatcher's time ... oh, it's too easy - RC).
I might also cite a Usenet thread in February 1998 instigated by one Andrew
Oakley, a very nice chap and a good friend of mine a while back, but who was
a member of the Tory party until resigning in 2000 because he felt Hague was
too far to the right, and had been a Young Conservative in the Thatcher era.
He began the thread by explaining that he divided his time between
teleworking from a cottage in the Cotswolds and commuting into Cheltenham,
but went on to play the full CA line by referring to "erosion and
dumbing-down of rural culture and traditions" and claiming, in relation to
his participation in the CA's first London rally, that rural people were
"clinging by their fingertips" to "what remains of the traditional rural way
of life" under threat from "the urban jackboot". He has since, however,
sung the praises of the Sky Digital TV platform. Is it just me, or is that
a stunning sequence of non sequiturs?
This is the thing. Tories, past or present and of whatever hue, rarely if
ever seem to have a consistent position on the whole Countryside Alliance
*thing*.
> One of the lesser mistakes, to my mind, that Mrs Thatcher made, was
banning
> 'rave parties' in the countyside, so long as the people on whose land
these
> parties were taking place did not object and neither did their neighbours.
>
> What, to your mind is worse: a fox hunt in the neighbourhood or an
all-night
> rave?
I believe in a countryside for everyone, whether minor aristocracy on
horseback or ravers (who, at the time, were often themselves the children of
minor aristocracy - the Westwood syndrome again). All should have access to
it. The Criminal Justice Act which you cite was one of the most
hypocritical and ill-thought-out pieces of legislation the Tories ever came
up with.
Robin Carmody
> it
> certainly isn't the CA's fault that they were effectively forced into
being
> by a government with no capacity to understand rural needs and concerns.
Out of interest, Michael, do you genuinely think that the Tories understood
rural needs and concerns any more than the current government does?
At least now others are aware that if you
> are fool enough to try to ban something that doesn't even happen where you
> live then people who are affected will react.
What do you mean by "where you live"?
Labour have many rural seats. Rural Labour MPs may confuse some of a Tory
bent by not talking in high-flown romantic terms while simultaneously
reducing everything to the brute force of the free market, but most of them
seem to care about their constituencies and their people.
Mel Rowing
First of all I don't ride!
The hunt is indeed a focus for social activities which extend beyond the
hunt itself (balls, dinners, charity events etc.)
It's difficult to see how such events could continue in the event of the
loss of their focus. It is nonetheless true that groups of like minded
people could enjoy (a day?) in the countryside on horseback. This type of
activity is, however, usually confined to treckers and riding schools as
opposed to accomplished riders.
As I understand it, the attraction of the hunt is that it provides a ride
that is unpredictable in character thus creating challenges and testing
qualities of horsemanship. To compare this with a canter along country lanes
or open fields is like comparing a Grand Prix with a spin to the shops. The
androenolin rise is just not there.
However, all this is by the way.
What we are talking about is a minority group taking the high moral ground
against another minority group taking advantage of the fact that the
majority, not involved in any way one way or the other, are susceptable to
the promotion of some notion of the involvement of a level of extraordinary
cruelty. A notion that upon real consideration does not really stand up to
the light of day.
Further we are talking about denying to a section of the people the right to
carry out a specific activity. I would maintain that when you interfere with
private lives in this manner you have to have a good reason for so doing.
Those of us who have taken an objective view on this matter are entitled to
ask "What next won't we be able to do?" Shoot? Fish? Drive? Whistle on a
Sunday? If, though I think when is more appropriate here, these proposals
go ahead ( via the inappropriate use or threat of the Parliament Act) we
shall all be a little less free.
It boils down to this. When Parliament passes laws curtailing the freedom of
anybody then, I would argue, there should be at least some suggestion of
general benefit overall. Where is that benefit? I can give you a list of
individuals who will suffer as the result of these proposals one way or
another directly or indirectly. Can you think of one who will benefit?
Mel Rowing
Michael Saunby
If such an argument were true then there would be no need for the very
expensive process now taking place to provide ramblers with a statutory
right to roam in open countryside. The reasons that landowners allow hunts
onto their land is varied, e.g. they (or their husband, wife, daughter,
son, etc) take part in the hunt or did when they were younger, they enjoy
the spectacle of the hunt, or - and it's not as uncommon as you might
think - they believe they get some genuine pest control service from the
hunt. I understand that something like 50% of open land in England is
available to hunts - though I expect only a small proportion of this is
hunted - so it seems hunts do have a much better relationship with
landowners than ramblers do. Now it could be a class thing, or it could
simply be an accident of history; however it would be very foolish to
believe that the freedom to ride of this same land when not hunting would
automatically be extended to all riders so inclined.
Of course what this also shows is that a strong dislike of hunting seems to
be confined to the landless. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:arvd81$24e$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > it
> > certainly isn't the CA's fault that they were effectively forced into
> being
> > by a government with no capacity to understand rural needs and
concerns.
>
> Out of interest, Michael, do you genuinely think that the Tories
understood
> rural needs and concerns any more than the current government does?
>
No, which is why I use the term "government". The political composition of
the government may change - its capacity to be of any use to man or beast
doesn't.
> At least now others are aware that if you
> > are fool enough to try to ban something that doesn't even happen where
you
> > live then people who are affected will react.
>
> What do you mean by "where you live"?
I'm pretty sure the majority of people in rural Devon do not wish to see a
hunting ban, just as the majority in Spain do not with to see a
bullfighting ban. That the vast majority of people in Birmingham, London,
Readind, etc. wish to ban hunting is a matter for local control.
>
> Labour have many rural seats. Rural Labour MPs may confuse some of a
Tory
> bent by not talking in high-flown romantic terms while simultaneously
> reducing everything to the brute force of the free market, but most of
them
> seem to care about their constituencies and their people.
Fine, so let them do what their people want and let our MPs do what people
here want.
Michael Saunby
Paul
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>It boils down to this. When Parliament passes laws curtailing the freedom of
>anybody then, I would argue, there should be at least some suggestion of
>general benefit overall. Where is that benefit? I can give you a list of
>individuals who will suffer as the result of these proposals one way or
>another directly or indirectly. Can you think of one who will benefit?
>
and barbaric practices such as the fox-rippers indulge themselves in,
for a start?
But hey, what the heck? Let's just have a free for all and allow anyone
who wants to inflict cruelty on an animal to do so... after all, we
wouldn't want to infringe his or her personal liberty, would we? I quite
fancy bringing back cock-fighting... it'd give lots of people pleasure
and I'd make a few bob to keep rural businesses going. Sod the cruelty,
who cares? And there are a few people on one of our local estates who
like to chase cats, corner them and kick them to death. Let's make that
legal, too. After all, who would benefit from keeping it illegal?
--
Paul B
Michael Saunby
"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
news:8Vko5OF$C349...@clara.co.uk...
> In article <arvjla$gcn$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Mel Rowing
> <mel.r...@btinternet.com> writes
> >
> >It boils down to this. When Parliament passes laws curtailing the
freedom of
> >anybody then, I would argue, there should be at least some suggestion of
> >general benefit overall. Where is that benefit? I can give you a list
of
> >individuals who will suffer as the result of these proposals one way or
> >another directly or indirectly. Can you think of one who will benefit?
> >
> Those of us who think that society is enriched by the cessation of cruel
> and barbaric practices such as the fox-rippers indulge themselves in,
> for a start?
Name one society that has been noticeably enriched by such legislation.
>
> But hey, what the heck? Let's just have a free for all and allow anyone
> who wants to inflict cruelty on an animal to do so... after all, we
> wouldn't want to infringe his or her personal liberty, would we? I quite
> fancy bringing back cock-fighting... it'd give lots of people pleasure
> and I'd make a few bob to keep rural businesses going. Sod the cruelty,
> who cares? And there are a few people on one of our local estates who
> like to chase cats, corner them and kick them to death. Let's make that
> legal, too. After all, who would benefit from keeping it illegal?
Certainly countries such as Spain where rather more cruelty to animals is
permitted don't seem to suffer greatly from the type of nonsense you
suggest here.
Perhaps you have simply fallen out with your local hunt and you want to
cause some trouble.
Michael Saunby
Steve Glynn
> Steve Glynn <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:arugst$lk5m2$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > In that case, Robin, please give us a couple of references for what
> 'certain
> > prime movers in the CA.... ' and so forth apparently endlessly do.
>
> Well ... remember the way that Peter and a few of his cohorts were banging
> on about the new ultra-right-wing breakaway group from the Tory party, the
> Conservative Democratic Alliance?
>
Not particularly. Did it ever actually come to anything? I suspect it
didn't, since otherwise we might have heard about it.
> Their website contains the following article about the CA march, written
by
> a long-term activist of the ultra-right named Peter Gibbs:
>
> http://conservativedemocrats.20m.com/photo4.html
>
> Let me dissect its deep absurdity. I only quote part of the article, but
I
> think it's more than enough:
<snip absurd article, along with your very sensible comments>
But what's that supposed to prove, other than that Peter Gibbs has written a
deeply silly article?
I've got deep misgivings about our proposed war with Iraq. So, AIUI, do
members of the Socialist Workers' Party and that far-right Austrian chap
whose party took such a hammering on Sunday. What does that prove, other
than that here's a specific issue on which they and I can agree? Doesn't
make me a Trotskyist or a Neo-Nazi, does it?
>
> This is the thing. Tories, past or present and of whatever hue, rarely if
> ever seem to have a consistent position on the whole Countryside Alliance
> *thing*.
>
Which might tend to make some people think that the Tory Party and the CA
are not the political wings of each other, might it not?
> > One of the lesser mistakes, to my mind, that Mrs Thatcher made, was
> banning
> > 'rave parties' in the countyside, so long as the people on whose land
> these
> > parties were taking place did not object and neither did their
neighbours.
> >
> > What, to your mind is worse: a fox hunt in the neighbourhood or an
> all-night
> > rave?
>
> I believe in a countryside for everyone, whether minor aristocracy on
> horseback or ravers (who, at the time, were often themselves the children
of
> minor aristocracy - the Westwood syndrome again). All should have access
to
> it. The Criminal Justice Act which you cite was one of the most
> hypocritical and ill-thought-out pieces of legislation the Tories ever
came
> up with.
>
Fine. Then presumably you also agree with the proposition that my wife, a
working-class girl from not just Old Hull but Neanderthal Hull, should be
allowed to chase foxes over the countryside, provided that she can afford to
borrow a horse for the day, that she knows what she's doing with the horse,
and that she has the permission of whoever's land she may be riding over.
Paul
<msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
>"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
>news:8Vko5OF$C349...@clara.co.uk...
>> In article <arvjla$gcn$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Mel Rowing
>> <mel.r...@btinternet.com> writes
>> >
>> >It boils down to this. When Parliament passes laws curtailing the
>freedom of
>> >anybody then, I would argue, there should be at least some suggestion of
>> >general benefit overall. Where is that benefit? I can give you a list
>of
>> >individuals who will suffer as the result of these proposals one way or
>> >another directly or indirectly. Can you think of one who will benefit?
>> >
>>
>
Why should I? As I said, if you bothered to read, my answer to the
question posed "Can you think of one (individual) who will benefit?" was
"Those of us who think that society is enriched by the cessation of
cruel
and barbaric practices such as the fox-rippers indulge themselves in,
for a start?
>
>>
>> But hey, what the heck? Let's just have a free for all and allow anyone
>> who wants to inflict cruelty on an animal to do so... after all, we
>> wouldn't want to infringe his or her personal liberty, would we? I quite
>> fancy bringing back cock-fighting... it'd give lots of people pleasure
>> and I'd make a few bob to keep rural businesses going. Sod the cruelty,
>> who cares? And there are a few people on one of our local estates who
>> like to chase cats, corner them and kick them to death. Let's make that
>> legal, too. After all, who would benefit from keeping it illegal?
>
>Certainly countries such as Spain where rather more cruelty to animals is
>permitted don't seem to suffer greatly from the type of nonsense you
>suggest here.
>
The moral issue is the same.
>Perhaps you have simply fallen out with your local hunt and you want to
>cause some trouble.
>
ROTFL! I don't have a local hunt. They are made *very* unwelcome in my
village, the majority living here despise the activity and make their
feelings very plain.
--
Paul B
Michael Saunby
> In article <arvsi5$5b6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
> >
>
> >cause some trouble.
> >
> ROTFL! I don't have a local hunt. They are made *very* unwelcome in my
> village, the majority living here despise the activity and make their
> feelings very plain.
Then what fucking business have you in interfering with what other people
do in other places?
You've shown that local people can bring about an end to hunting. I expect
there are almost no hunts within the M25 where again many people are likely
to object.
Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and are
quite happy to leave things as they are? Or do you plan to visit France,
Ireland, etc. and demand that hunting be banned right across Europe?
Michael Saunby
Robin Carmody
>
> (hunting)
>
> Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and
are
> quite happy to leave things as they are?
But country people have already strengthened and accelerated the erosion of
their customs and traditions by voting overwhelmingly for the Thatcher
government. Somehow it rings hollow when you attack government intervention
and demand the right to "maintain your traditions", because you would have
far more power to live in your traditional way had you voted differently in
the 80s and early 90s.
I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record in threads like this; it's just
how recent British history seems to me.
Michael Saunby
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:as0fnp$6n0$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > (hunting)
> >
> > Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and
> are
> > quite happy to leave things as they are?
>
> But country people have already strengthened and accelerated the erosion
of
> their customs and traditions by voting overwhelmingly for the Thatcher
> government.
Hang on. I never asked for laws that prevent the countryside from
changing - I'm no fan of the CPRE either. What I don't expect is for
looneys who believe that choosing not to hunt makes a person more moral,
and then being fuckwitted enough to believe that making hunting a crime
with somehow make people more moral by force of law.
> Somehow it rings hollow when you attack government intervention
> and demand the right to "maintain your traditions", because you would
have
> far more power to live in your traditional way had you voted differently
in
> the 80s and early 90s.
I'm not attacking government intervention. The movement to ban hunting
derives from a peculiar mix of established puritancial beliefs - which
should only really prevent people from particular protestant sects from
hunting, from newagey AR beliefs, and of course class hatred. This has
nothing to do with the normal business of government. Hence when it hit
parliament, it did so as a free vote, and although a majority were for a
ban, it seems that being so immoral as to thinking their is nothing wrong
with hunting doesn't disqualify a person from serving as an MP. And that's
as it should be, it isn't immoral despite som claims made on these groups.
>
> I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record in threads like this; it's just
> how recent British history seems to me.
>
As a battle between two political parties. Whereas in the real world....
Robin Carmody
>
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:arvg2v$q3s$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Steve Glynn <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:arugst$lk5m2$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > In that case, Robin, please give us a couple of references for what
> > 'certain
> > > prime movers in the CA.... ' and so forth apparently endlessly do.
> >
> > Well ... remember the way that Peter and a few of his cohorts were
banging
> > on about the new ultra-right-wing breakaway group from the Tory party,
the
> > Conservative Democratic Alliance?
> >
>
> Not particularly. Did it ever actually come to anything? I suspect it
> didn't, since otherwise we might have heard about it.
It's only been going a few months, and it does express a voice of "literal
conservatism" that doesn't otherwise have much representation. Even if it
doesn't make a lasting impact, I can see it splitting the vote in a few
marginals next time round so as to allow Labour or the Lib Dems in, just as
the UKIP did last year. Self-destructive as ever, then ...
> <snip absurd article, along with your very sensible comments>
Thanks for the compliments!
> But what's that supposed to prove, other than that Peter Gibbs has written
a
> deeply silly article?
Just that a lot of the most vociferous CA supporters *do*, in my experience,
tend to contradict themselves. Gibbs is admittedly an extreme example.
> I've got deep misgivings about our proposed war with Iraq. So, AIUI, do
> members of the Socialist Workers' Party and that far-right Austrian chap
> whose party took such a hammering on Sunday. What does that prove, other
> than that here's a specific issue on which they and I can agree? Doesn't
> make me a Trotskyist or a Neo-Nazi, does it?
It is true that many people support hunting; it is however also true in my
experience that the core pro-hunt people come from a very narrow social,
political and cultural axis.
> > This is the thing. Tories, past or present and of whatever hue, rarely
if
> > ever seem to have a consistent position on the whole Countryside
Alliance
> > *thing*.
> >
>
> Which might tend to make some people think that the Tory Party and the CA
> are not the political wings of each other, might it not?
The CA's internal paradoxes mirror those of the Tory party.
> Fine. Then presumably you also agree with the proposition that my wife,
a
> working-class girl from not just Old Hull but Neanderthal Hull, should be
> allowed to chase foxes over the countryside, provided that she can afford
to
> borrow a horse for the day, that she knows what she's doing with the
horse,
> and that she has the permission of whoever's land she may be riding over.
She should be allowed to indulge in many pleasures of the field; I just find
foxhunting morally repulsive, that's all.
Mel Rowing
> In article <arvjla$gcn$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Mel Rowing
> <mel.r...@btinternet.com> writes
> >
> >It boils down to this. When Parliament passes laws curtailing the freedom
of
> >anybody then, I would argue, there should be at least some suggestion of
> >general benefit overall. Where is that benefit? I can give you a list of
> >individuals who will suffer as the result of these proposals one way or
> >another directly or indirectly. Can you think of one who will benefit?
> >
> Those of us who think that society is enriched by the cessation of cruel
> and barbaric practices such as the fox-rippers indulge themselves in,
> for a start?
Ah! Those of us who "think" something or other. Reality is that most of us
think something most of the time. A mere value judgement is hardly
sufficient reason in itself for denying someone a right to private life.
The term cruelty is hardly self definitive and must be seen in the context
of the other deprivations to which we subject animals. For instance, why is
it cruel to hunt an animal though not to shoot one? or to humanely destroy
an injured racehorse so as to avoid expensive vetinary fees and qualify for
insurance payments. To allow a fish to gasp in the bottom of a nboat until
its gills dry out. To force feed a goose to enlarge its liver to satisfy the
taste for pate de fois gras.
If you are to insist that must cease then surely you need to set out
criteria in order that "cruel and barbaric practices" must first of all be
defined.
> But hey, what the heck? Let's just have a free for all and allow anyone
> who wants to inflict cruelty on an animal to do so... after all, we
> wouldn't want to infringe his or her personal liberty, would we? I quite
> fancy bringing back cock-fighting... it'd give lots of people pleasure
> and I'd make a few bob to keep rural businesses going. Sod the cruelty,
> who cares? And there are a few people on one of our local estates who
> like to chase cats, corner them and kick them to death. Let's make that
> legal, too. After all, who would benefit from keeping it illegal?
In the latter case, surely the owner of the cat.
As regards cock fighting, you no doubt know that this practice is perfectly
legal in some societies. Are you suggesting that these societies are morally
inferior to ours?
Be that as maybe, can you agree that there is room for some clear
distinction between fox hunting and cock fighting, bear baiting, bull
baiting and bear baiting. Is it not a fact that although in all these
circumstances one animal attacks another as part of its nature, both
combatants are restrained in an arena so that neither is afforded
opportunity to flee. The consequence of this is that one or both combatants
are likely to sustain grievous injury and/or proplonged pain whether death
ends the contest or not. In the case of hunting, and coursing this is not
the case.
Perhaps here we have a criterion to help us to decide whether or not a given
practice is cruel.
Mel Rowing
Gareth Crawshaw
Slightly tongue in cheek, but the point is that while two single issues of
two single issue groups are so antagonistic, much would need to be done to
get them to agree a netural or mutual territory from which to argue their
case. Given that the socail and economic welfare of rural soceity does not
appear high on the list of priorites of the LACS or the CA, there is little
reason for them to play a part in a calition of rural concerns groups...
> > While
> > such influential forces as the CA exists, other rural affairs oriented
> > pressure groups are going to find a meaningful future difficult. And so
> we
> > come full circle... while the CA holds the influence it does, real rural
> > issues are pushed further and further into the back of peoples' minds...
>
> Surely rural people are all too aware of the problems and other folks were
> never too bothered either way.
Abput rural affairs? Social and economic problem? Yes on both counts.
Trouble is, the "other folks" make decisions that impact on the state of
rural life, transport policies for example...
> At least now others are aware that if you
> are fool enough to try to ban something that doesn't even happen where you
> live then people who are affected will react. Sure, it's common sense and
> even young children ought to know at least that much, but these are
strange
> times we live in.
Don't understand.... which others? But I think I get what youy mean. I
don't think that the CA can take any credit for people having common sense
though! :-)
Gareth
Mel Rowing
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:as0fnp$6n0$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and
are
> > quite happy to leave things as they are?
>
> But country people have already strengthened and accelerated the erosion
of
> their customs and traditions by voting overwhelmingly for the Thatcher
> government.
Robin you really are a remarkable fellow to have this capacity to create so
much piffle out of nothing.
There is an old saying to the effect that if elections changed anything then
they would be banned.
It may well be from time to time that elections do reflect social change
and/or cultural change but there is no way that they can cause it. Speaking
as someone who did vote in these elections and was not a babe in arms, both
rural and urban voters in large numbers voted Tory for lots of reasons and
not least that they did not find the alternatives offered too appealing.
Government action does not change folk's fundamental attitudes towards and
perceptions of the world. Only politicians fool themselves into believing
the contrary. A bit of a do was held here a few months ago in honour of an
old boy who had retired after 45 years in farming. In his speech he said "
'Ave seen many changes in me time. Not many of 'em fo' t' better" (They talk
like that round here) Not much cultural change there is there? Culture is
far too engrained in the individual psyche to be fundamentally changed by
mere governments.
Things have changed in the countryside of course. The face of rural Britain
has changed just as the face of the rest of Britain. However, it is
essentially the face rather than anything else that has changed. Young
people do tend to see the world in a slightly different light than their
elders. Then again they always did. Don't run away with the idea that these
superficial changes changes began in 1979. They've been going on for a very
long time.
> Somehow it rings hollow when you attack government intervention
> and demand the right to "maintain your traditions", because you would have
> far more power to live in your traditional way had you voted differently
in
> the 80s and early 90s.
Traditions and Customs are nothing to do with power. Traditions and customs
are not in the gift of nor can they or should they be imposed from above by
politicians. I thought ideas such as that had their last gasp around 1945.
> I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record in threads like this; it's just
> how recent British history seems to me.
No more like the monotone of a bass drum with a slack skin. If recent
History seems like that to you then it could be that you have lived through
too little of it. I would suggest that you get your idle arse of that seat,
chuck the computer out of the window, get into the real world, serve a real
function, meet and talk to some real people and get a real life. Then you
might find that the world is not as simple to understand and come to terms
with as you would have us believe.
Mel Rowing
Paul
>
>"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
>news:IMh1vHTq...@clara.co.uk...
>> In article <arvsi5$5b6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
>> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>> >
>>
>> >Perhaps you have simply fallen out with your local hunt and you want to
>> >cause some trouble.
>> >
>> ROTFL! I don't have a local hunt. They are made *very* unwelcome in my
>> village, the majority living here despise the activity and make their
>> feelings very plain.
>
>Then what fucking business have you in interfering with what other people
>do in other places?
>
can influence it I will.
That plain enough for you?
>You've shown that local people can bring about an end to hunting. I expect
>there are almost no hunts within the M25 where again many people are likely
>to object.
>
I wouldn't know, I live in rural Oxfordshire.
>Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and are
>quite happy to leave things as they are? Or do you plan to visit France,
>Ireland, etc. and demand that hunting be banned right across Europe?
>
I don't have any say in what happens in France, fuckwit. I do, I'm glad
to say, in England, and I'll exercise it exactly how I wish. It's called
democracy.
--
Paul B
Paul
<msa...@despammed.com> writes
>The movement to ban hunting
>derives from a peculiar mix of established puritancial beliefs
Idiot. Shows how little you understand. My wish to ban hunting is based
solely on the fact that I consider it wrong to torment an animal for
fun. Is that puritanical?
And I speak as someone who was born in the depths of the countryside,
and, apart from 5 years working abroad, has lived all my life in rural
England.
--
Paul B
Paul
>
>"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
>news:8Vko5OF$C349...@clara.co.uk...
>> In article <arvjla$gcn$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Mel Rowing
>> <mel.r...@btinternet.com> writes
>> >
>> >It boils down to this. When Parliament passes laws curtailing the freedom
>of
>> >anybody then, I would argue, there should be at least some suggestion of
>> >general benefit overall. Where is that benefit? I can give you a list of
>> >individuals who will suffer as the result of these proposals one way or
>> >another directly or indirectly. Can you think of one who will benefit?
>> >
>> Those of us who think that society is enriched by the cessation of cruel
>> and barbaric practices such as the fox-rippers indulge themselves in,
>> for a start?
>
>Ah! Those of us who "think" something or other. Reality is that most of us
>think something most of the time. A mere value judgement is hardly
>sufficient reason in itself for denying someone a right to private life.
>
me. And my view is of equal value as yours.
>The term cruelty is hardly self definitive and must be seen in the context
>of the other deprivations to which we subject animals. For instance, why is
>it cruel to hunt an animal
Because it's done for fun. Can you not grasp that concept?
>though not to shoot one?
I'd shoot an animal (or a human) who was suffering a slow, painful
death. As I'd hope would be done for me.
>or to humanely destroy
>an injured racehorse so as to avoid expensive vetinary fees and qualify for
>insurance payments. To allow a fish to gasp in the bottom of a nboat until
>its gills dry out. To force feed a goose to enlarge its liver to satisfy the
>taste for pate de fois gras.
>
Where do you read that I think those are acceptable?
>If you are to insist that must cease then surely you need to set out
>criteria in order that "cruel and barbaric practices" must first of all be
>defined.
>
Nope. I have my own views, gained from my 52 years of living in the
rural areas of this country.
>> But hey, what the heck? Let's just have a free for all and allow anyone
>> who wants to inflict cruelty on an animal to do so... after all, we
>> wouldn't want to infringe his or her personal liberty, would we? I quite
>> fancy bringing back cock-fighting... it'd give lots of people pleasure
>> and I'd make a few bob to keep rural businesses going. Sod the cruelty,
>> who cares? And there are a few people on one of our local estates who
>> like to chase cats, corner them and kick them to death. Let's make that
>> legal, too. After all, who would benefit from keeping it illegal?
>
>In the latter case, surely the owner of the cat.
>
Never heard of feral cats? Probably not, but we get plenty of them out
here in the countryside. Don't know who owns them, though, are you
claiming ownership?
>As regards cock fighting, you no doubt know that this practice is perfectly
>legal in some societies. Are you suggesting that these societies are morally
>inferior to ours?
>
Yes.
>Be that as maybe, can you agree that there is room for some clear
>distinction between fox hunting and cock fighting, bear baiting, bull
>baiting and bear baiting. Is it not a fact that although in all these
>circumstances one animal attacks another as part of its nature, both
>combatants are restrained in an arena so that neither is afforded
>opportunity to flee. The consequence of this is that one or both combatants
>are likely to sustain grievous injury and/or proplonged pain whether death
>ends the contest or not. In the case of hunting, and coursing this is not
>the case.
>
Really? So the hare, when coursed, has a way of escaping?
You are either very naive or just plain ignorant.
>Perhaps here we have a criterion to help us to decide whether or not a given
>practice is cruel.
>
Nope. I believe, through my own experience, that hunting with dogs is
cruel. Therefore I have a right, in our democratic society, to demand of
my representative that it be banned. YMMV. However, my vote will go to
the person who most represents my point of view.
Quite honestly I don't care how you react. You have as much right to
your point of view as do I. In the end parliament will decide. If it
decides against me I'll continue to fight for my views, and I'll vote
for an MP who will represent them, as I'm sure you will as well.
--
Paul B
Michael Saunby
> In article <as0fnp$6n0$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
> >
> >"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
> >news:IMh1vHTq...@clara.co.uk...
> >> In article <arvsi5$5b6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
> >> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
> >> >
> >>
> >> >Perhaps you have simply fallen out with your local hunt and you want
to
> >> >cause some trouble.
> >> >
> >> ROTFL! I don't have a local hunt. They are made *very* unwelcome in my
> >> village, the majority living here despise the activity and make their
> >> feelings very plain.
> >
> >Then what fucking business have you in interfering with what other
people
> >do in other places?
> >
> I have a vote. Plain enough. I don't like cruelty to animals, and if I
> can influence it I will.
>
> That plain enough for you?
Sure. And although I don't hunt all the contact I've had with folk who
object strongly too it gives me the impression that for them a ban on
hunting is seen as a start to even more restriction on what other people
can do. For example the talk of cruelty in such a general way they must
surely also wish to ban shooting, perhaps fishing, and some even the
farming of animals for food. So although it's just possible that you only
object to a very particular sport, my guess is that you don't hence your
judgement on matters of cruelty to animals is not worth a damn.
>
> >You've shown that local people can bring about an end to hunting. I
expect
> >there are almost no hunts within the M25 where again many people are
likely
> >to object.
> >
> I wouldn't know, I live in rural Oxfordshire.
Well there are certainly hunts in Oxfordshire. I expect even Oxford
University has one. Most likely in Oxfordshire you are actually in a
minority in wanting a ban of hunting.
>
> >Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and
are
> >quite happy to leave things as they are? Or do you plan to visit
France,
> >Ireland, etc. and demand that hunting be banned right across Europe?
> >
> I don't have any say in what happens in France, fuckwit. I do, I'm glad
> to say, in England, and I'll exercise it exactly how I wish. It's called
> democracy.
It isn't democratic. If it were then it would be democratic for the whole
UK population to vote for the Mayor of London on the basis that it is the
capital. Why should you get a vote on hunting in Devon, why should I get a
vote on hunting in Oxfordshire?
So you don't vote in European elections, and don't recognise the power of
the EU? Of course it would be theoretically possible to ban hunting right
across Europe if you and your kind were really right in thinking that a ban
on hunting was a mark of progress. Europe likes progress. However
Catholics don't generally have any interest in animal rights protests, etc.
So the majority of the population of Europe wouldn't want a ban on hunting.
Indeed in this matter the population of Europe are more in touch with
global feelings, and it's just a few deviants in the UK and some other
Protestant countries that have a problem with it, and have done since the
17th century.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
> In article <as0n6l$ktg$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
> >The movement to ban hunting
> >derives from a peculiar mix of established puritancial beliefs
>
> Idiot. Shows how little you understand. My wish to ban hunting is based
> solely on the fact that I consider it wrong to torment an animal for
> fun. Is that puritanical?
>
You didn't start the movement to ban hunting - you joined it. If others
hadn't suggested it be banned how might you have derived the idea from
first principles? Have you done a lot of hunting, have you compared it
with other activites such as shooting and fishing, or the control of vermin
by local authorities? Why if your councern is cruely would you pick
hunting? You didn't - you're a follower.
> And I speak as someone who was born in the depths of the countryside,
> and, apart from 5 years working abroad, has lived all my life in rural
> England.
Presumably not working for a hunt.
Michael Saunby
Paul
>
>"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
>news:5lEJwKH6...@clara.co.uk...
>> In article <as0n6l$ktg$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
>> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>>
>> >The movement to ban hunting
>> >derives from a peculiar mix of established puritancial beliefs
>>
>> Idiot. Shows how little you understand. My wish to ban hunting is based
>> solely on the fact that I consider it wrong to torment an animal for
>> fun. Is that puritanical?
>>
>
>You didn't start the movement to ban hunting - you joined it.
And?
>If others
>hadn't suggested it be banned how might you have derived the idea from
>first principles?
Basically because I have seen many hunts in action and I consider them
to be acting with cruelty.
>Have you done a lot of hunting,
When I was a teenager I hunted a few times with what was then the
Bicester and Warden Hill hunt. The barbarity I witnessed put me off for
life.
>have you compared it
>with other activites such as shooting
I wasn't aware that shooting involved chasing a mammal for hours on end
before ripping it apart while it was still alive. Maybe you can
enlighten me there.
>and fishing,
I haven't fished, nor have I any wish to.
>or the control of vermin
>by local authorities? Why if your councern is cruely would you pick
>hunting?
Because at the moment I actually have the chance to do something about
what I perceive to be a cruel and barbaric activity.
>You didn't - you're a follower.
>
Dedicated. So what?
>> And I speak as someone who was born in the depths of the countryside,
>> and, apart from 5 years working abroad, has lived all my life in rural
>> England.
>
>Presumably not working for a hunt.
>
Nope, I run my own business.
--
Paul B
Paul
<msa...@despammed.com> writes
>Why should you get a vote on hunting in Devon, why should I get a
>vote on hunting in Oxfordshire?
Because I can vote on cruelty issues wherever my vote will have an
influence. Hunting in Devon is no less barbaric and cruel than hunting
in Oxfordshire. As a citizen of the United Kingdom I have the right to
vote on issues which affect the whole of the United Kingdom. And believe
me, I have and will.
Are you really unable to grasp the concept of universal issues? My
government, which sets out what is legal and what is illegal for the UK,
has said it will allow a free vote on hunting with dogs. I intend to use
whatever influence I have with local and national MP's to ensure that
they take my views into account when they decide which way they will
vote. Are you saying that I don't have that right? Or that I should not
exercise it?
--
Paul B
altheim
"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote:
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
> >The movement to ban hunting
> >derives from a peculiar mix of established puritancial beliefs
>
> Idiot. Shows how little you understand. My wish to ban hunting is based
> solely on the fact that I consider it wrong to torment an animal for
> fun. Is that puritanical?
That you find it wrong to torment an animal is a belief;
shouting "Idiot" in an attempt to browbeat and silence
those who do not think as you do, is puritanical.
--
altheim
Steve Glynn
<snip>
> Because it's [fox hunting} done for fun. Can you not grasp that concept?
>
Sorry to interrupt, but when my wife used to hunt she did it because she
enjoyed riding, and I'm assured that the attraction of hunting is that it
takes you over a completely unpredictable course and through land that a
drag hunt could not offer.
Whether or not you kill the fox is usually a secondary matter, and I remain
to be convinced that hunting a fox with hounds is much worse than laying
down poison bait or setting snares.
Thomas Babbington, Lord Macauley, the great Whig politician and historian
once remarked (from memeory) that 'The Puritan objected to bear baiting not
because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the
spectator'.
Paul
<alt...@theobstacle-freeuk.com> writes
Browbeat and silence? Nah, you have a strange way of interpreting
English. Are you a foreigner or just rather dim?
--
Paul B
Peter J King
> Whether or not you kill the fox is usually a secondary matter, and I remain
> to be convinced that hunting a fox with hounds is much worse than laying
> down poison bait or setting snares.
First, it's hardly morally relevant that killing the fox isn't one's
primary purpose. Secondly, I'd say that it's worse (see below), but
that poison and snares are also morally objectionable.
> Thomas Babbington, Lord Macauley, the great Whig politician and historian
> once remarked (from memeory) that 'The Puritan objected to bear baiting not
> because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the
> spectator'.
But there's a middle course; one can object both because it gives pain to
the bear *and* because the spectators gain pleasure from watching the
giving of pain. The former is directly bad, the latter indirectly
(because of what it does to the individual, and to the society of which
the individual's a member).
Peter J. King
Gareth Crawshaw
"Peter J King" <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.44.021127...@ermine.ox.ac.uk...
(an aside...)
Peter... (not an attack but...) You've seen my answer below? I knda got back
on the moral arguement... If you're replying as I type this then I
apologise, but otherwise, I'd be interested in your response...
Gareth
altheim
Sorry mate, you can't laugh this off; the fact is you slipped up.
--
altheim
Steve Glynn
Hang on, Robin. You seem to be arguing that since everyone knows (other
than Glynn) that the Countryside Alliance and the Conservative Party are
much the same thing, any apparent contradiction between the views of those
two organisations means they can't get their act together to agree.
An alternative explanation, which appeals to me because I like to keep
things simple, is that they disagree because they are not one and the same
thing.
Indeed, let's go further. Ken Clarke and Margaret Thatcher are both
members of the Conservative Party. They disagree about some issue which
seem to them fundamental. They agree about others. Unless we intend to
conduct a purge of the Conservative Party (which might not be a bad idea, he
muttered malevolently) all this tells me is that people sometimes disagree
with each other but find enough in common to work together most of the time.
I'm willing to bet that you disagree with the death penalty and an
independent British nuclear deterrant. So did the late Enoch Powell.
I'm also willing to bet you disagree with him on a few other issues.
Do you think that makes either of you the victims of internal paradoxes in
your views? I don't.
> > Fine. Then presumably you also agree with the proposition that my
wife,
> a
> > working-class girl from not just Old Hull but Neanderthal Hull, should
be
> > allowed to chase foxes over the countryside, provided that she can
afford
> to
> > borrow a horse for the day, that she knows what she's doing with the
> horse,
> > and that she has the permission of whoever's land she may be riding
over.
>
> She should be allowed to indulge in many pleasures of the field; I just
find
> foxhunting morally repulsive, that's all.
>
Fine. However, are you arguing that because you find something morally
repulsive it should be banned? Be careful how you answer that, because
there's a slippery slope down which I'll be delighted to take you ..... :)
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 14/11/02
Jonathan Bratt
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> writes
>. A bit of a do was held here a few months ago in honour of an
>old boy who had retired after 45 years in farming. In his speech he said "
>'Ave seen many changes in me time. Not many of 'em fo' t' better" (They talk
>like that round here)
They speak like that in most places. Few people think that changes are
for the better, they tend to remember back to their youth when - of
course - they were young and so assume that times were better. My father
- 75 - is one of the few people who go on not about how wonderful things
were, but about the poverty, the grind, the backbreaking housework.
Things are better now than they have ever been and are getting better.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
>
>"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
>news:IMh1vHTq...@clara.co.uk...
>> In article <arvsi5$5b6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Michael Saunby
>> <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>> >
>>
>> >Perhaps you have simply fallen out with your local hunt and you want to
>> >cause some trouble.
>> >
>> ROTFL! I don't have a local hunt. They are made *very* unwelcome in my
>> village, the majority living here despise the activity and make their
>> feelings very plain.
>
>Then what fucking business have you in interfering with what other people
>do in other places?
>
>You've shown that local people can bring about an end to hunting. I expect
>there are almost no hunts within the M25 where again many people are likely
>to object.
>
>Why can't you accept that in some places the majority do not object and are
>quite happy to leave things as they are? Or do you plan to visit France,
>Ireland, etc. and demand that hunting be banned right across Europe?
I want bull-fighting banned even tho' I don't live in Spain. Are we
supposed to ignore cruelty merely because it is not on our own
doorsteps?
--
Jonathan Bratt