General Chat

My sympathy for the hunters dissipated years ago when I joined a hunt briefly for the second and last time. Having been told that hunting keeps down the fox population and is a 'public service' I was appalled when the hounds were called off a vixen that was obviously pregnant. Keeping the population down? Stuff and nonsense!! To address the subject of Daniel's thread though, laws are human made and not able to deal with all the nuances of the human condition. There are always going to be people who disagree with the existence and implementation of some, those who flout the law for their own ends and those whose genuine needs are restricted by ill-formed laws. All part of life's rich tapestry. :-)

Daniel I think quite a lot of people pick and choose which laws they follow - don't think I've driven anywhere without seeing someone breaking the speed limit! nell

LFTS I read that in the Daily Mail on my way to the London Meet.

I want to know where the RSPCA stands in this debate. Surely ripping an animal to pieces constitutes cruelty, or am I missing something here?

Bob, You should be locked up. Talking about christmas will cause offence to other religions. They will need counselling. Happy days.

So many'Stupid' laws have been created recently, for example it is now an offence for an untrained person to assist a woman giving birth. Surely Police time has to be rationed to the extent that there will always be crimes and offences which take a low priority, and much as I detest Foxhunting I would rather the Police were defending my family than a fox from attackers.

I am sorry I should have included a 'relatively' before the 'trivial' I did not intend to offend anyone but compared to a number of other issues before parliament I see this a a trivial mater for our MPs and our police. Having said that I belive there will be so many anti hunt protesters about in the next few weeks that keeping the peace will have to be a high police priority. So, then, no it will not be trivial - humans could be at risk of injury. I hope this makes things clearer. Bob

That's what I'm saying.

People of both sides of the argument would disagree on it being trivial. That's come across loud and clear in the papers etc. A law which is not enforced is not a law. really, is it? Just a guidline that people can choose to abide by if they wish, which brings me back the the original point of the thread.

I am neither for nor against hunting as an exersice. I am against the massive waste of parliamentary time and probably police time on something so trivial. Was there not a report to parliament that said on ballance hunting with dogs was probably the least cruel way of contolling fox numbers? I have not read the report but should not our law makers take the advise of experts that they employ to look into this or any other mater? Bob

Bobs, do you agree with the ban? If your answer is yes, then surely we need to enforce it? Agree?

I can see the point of keeping pests down, it's the way a sport is made out if that I don't agree with. They say 'it's a way of country life', I live in the country, and I don't hunt! I think it's very stupid of them to break the law like that. I don't feel sorry for them if they do get caught. If it's ok to break a law like that and get away with it..... then why don't they just condone murder at the same time! It is true, hunting is a 'rich' sport but I don't know people from farming communities who go out hunting, and they are not rich. But even these people seem to make a sport of it. Chloe

Well if he does what he said he'll do (on camera I might add) then I want to see that Otis punished. If not then what was the point of banning it???

We all know that the police do and can not follow up every crime that is committed. I do not belive that prosecuting hunters will be a good use of police and court time. There are far more serious crimes beeing committed. This is not to say that hunters should break the law, but nor should they be policed when there is not enough police to cover our streets or protect our houses. Bob

Just when I saw that Otis Ferry guy and his gang blatantly say they were going to continue hunting despite the ban made me think, `Who the hell do you think you are?`. Thought it would be an interesting topic for here.

Daniel, Never hunted in my life. People already choose to break laws from choice. Fox-hunting has probably never killed anybody. Drivers of speeding cars do it regularly. Give it some thought and you will find there are lots of examples. Seems to me there is a lot of blind prejudice on the fox-hunting issue. Repeat - I have noconnection with fox-hunting in any way. No offence, I,m just trying to put some balance in the matter. I agree with Bob, from earlier. Happy days

I can hear church bells in the distance

go right ahead

As I mentioned on the other thread, it's not breaking the law to use hounds to flush out foxes for marksmen to kill, equally it's not breaking the law for the hunt to follow on behind. In Scotland, more foxes have been killed since the ban came into effect.

People every day flout laws they don't agree with, be it parking, downloading music or fiddling the taxman. Most people understand why another is inventive filling in tax returns, even if they don't personally cheat. The issue here is the polarisation hunting causes; something most people see as a black or white legal and MORAL issue. It will be difficult to prove a hunt is taking place unless someone sees an animal killed by a dog AND they can prove it was intentional rather than someone's dog getting carried away. Just riding around, with hounds, in hunt regalia, is not a criminal offence. One magistrate or judge - forget which - has said he won't sit in any cases of hunters flouting the ban. God help any animal rights activists or hunt sabateurs who come before him. Justice may be blind, but she is one biased old lady.