REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

As a townie who lives on the edge of farmland and will shortly be moving to a wholly rural location, I'm against most of the acts recently banned (hunting with dogs of hares/stag/mink) and ambivalent about fox hunting. I know people who've lived in the country all their lives who feel the same. I would have liked to have seen the acts separated but that was prevented by backwoodsmen on both sides.
I'd like to see Tom moderate his posting but would point out that the tone is no more offensive than postings on other threads by some of the pro-hunting group and can't help but smile at the sense of outrage portrayed. The words 'reap' and 'sow' come to mind.
I don't see the point of abuse as a discussion strategy. The reality is that this law will be around for several years if Labour win the next election (see Lord H for current odds) and, if it is, the whole issue will subside in that time. It's quite likely that Labour will not win the election after next and, if elected, the Tories would repeal the current law. That is some way off and I for one can't be arsed to discuss this minor issue for the next 4 or 5 years. It will NOT decide the next election, possibly a dozen seats where it's a decisive issue.
If you're for the law - sit down shut up, you've a victory of sorts. If you're against it - accept it, you lost. The Hunts will continue in a 'legal' way. Rather like speeding, those infringing the law will be prosecuted on a fairly random basis. Horses will be exercised, country folk will have their fun. Animal rights groups have already said that they intend moving on to factory farming.

<blockquote data-quote="archie" data-source="post: 2037256" data-attributes="member: 64935">As a townie who lives on the edge of farmland and will shortly be moving to a wholly rural location, I&#039;m against most of the acts recently banned (hunting with dogs of hares/stag/mink) and ambivalent about fox hunting. I know people who&#039;ve lived in the country all their lives who feel the same. I would have liked to have seen the acts separated but that was prevented by backwoodsmen on both sides. I&#039;d like to see Tom moderate his posting but would point out that the tone is no more offensive than postings on other threads by some of the pro-hunting group and can&#039;t help but smile at the sense of outrage portrayed. The words &#039;reap&#039; and &#039;sow&#039; come to mind.I don&#039;t see the point of abuse as a discussion strategy. The reality is that this law will be around for several years if Labour win the next election (see Lord H for current odds) and, if it is, the whole issue will subside in that time. It&#039;s quite likely that Labour will not win the election after next and, if elected, the Tories would repeal the current law. That is some way off and I for one can&#039;t be arsed to discuss this minor issue for the next 4 or 5 years. It will NOT decide the next election, possibly a dozen seats where it&#039;s a decisive issue.If you&#039;re for the law - sit down shut up, you&#039;ve a victory of sorts. If you&#039;re against it - accept it, you lost. The Hunts will continue in a &#039;legal&#039; way. Rather like speeding, those infringing the law will be prosecuted on a fairly random basis. Horses will be exercised, country folk will have their fun. Animal rights groups have already said that they intend moving on to factory farming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="archie, post: 2037256, member: 64935"] As a townie who lives on the edge of farmland and will shortly be moving to a wholly rural location, I'm against most of the acts recently banned (hunting with dogs of hares/stag/mink) and ambivalent about fox hunting. I know people who've lived in the country all their lives who feel the same. I would have liked to have seen the acts separated but that was prevented by backwoodsmen on both sides. I'd like to see Tom moderate his posting but would point out that the tone is no more offensive than postings on other threads by some of the pro-hunting group and can't help but smile at the sense of outrage portrayed. The words 'reap' and 'sow' come to mind. I don't see the point of abuse as a discussion strategy. The reality is that this law will be around for several years if Labour win the next election (see Lord H for current odds) and, if it is, the whole issue will subside in that time. It's quite likely that Labour will not win the election after next and, if elected, the Tories would repeal the current law. That is some way off and I for one can't be arsed to discuss this minor issue for the next 4 or 5 years. It will NOT decide the next election, possibly a dozen seats where it's a decisive issue. If you're for the law - sit down shut up, you've a victory of sorts. If you're against it - accept it, you lost. The Hunts will continue in a 'legal' way. Rather like speeding, those infringing the law will be prosecuted on a fairly random basis. Horses will be exercised, country folk will have their fun. Animal rights groups have already said that they intend moving on to factory farming. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?