« Tory blocks sleaze probe | Main | Over drugged »

January 27, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Judi Hewitt

Well done Patrick. I have studied foxes for over twenty years in North Wales, and you are right about foxes eating mainly worms, rabbits (when they can catch them) and carrion. From inspection of their droppings, at certain times of year they also eat copious amounts of berries.
Foxes will never take a healthy lamb that's more than a couple of weeks old, unless it's sick. A ewe will see off any fox that she thinks is after her babies.
I must say though, I've never seen a fox worrying sheep. I have however seen a fox trotting calmly across a field full of ewes and lambs, without even a backward glance from the fox, and no sign of fear from the sheep.
On another occasion I watched a foot hunt (using hounds) in progress and the sheep were running around in distress.
The fact is I've seen plenty of lambs over the years that have simply died by natural causes. Usually the mother rejects them or she can't supply enough milk, or they die from hypothermia. It's heart breaking to see these poor animals on a freezing windswept hillside.
I once saw a tiny lamb (one freezing January) that looked truly miserable as it tried to shelter in the small hollow of a tree (perched on a vast unprotected landscape).This tiny lamb should have had shelter with its mother, not exposed to the cruel elements. At least until it had more fleece to keep it warm.
Malcome, you really should stop insulting people. It does you no credit and serves to make people despise you for your thoughtless attitude towards animals.
I hope you wake one day to the cruelties you inflict upon defenceless animals, and see as my husband did, the folly of shooting animals to death, just because you can.


Malcolm "loves the natural world"
You (M) accused me of being "obdurately attached to my delusions". What pretentious drivel from captain delusion himself.
Deluded is a man thinking he lives in a pristine past in a time when we actually needed the flesh and bone to live. Surely you have a supermarket you can visit and then stop eating boiled vixen heads?Do you really want to live in the real natural world?
You would last about Three days.
Malcolms idea of getting close to nature is not that far of from the 'overgrown frog' on horseback that leaves his city office for a huntin the country. We have a term in the country to describe this sort of person, ironically it rhymes with hunt.
Go and live in the Canaian Wilderess and at least give the Bears nd Wolves a sporting chance. But its not about sport , is it (M)?
you leave your centrally heated, double glazed insulated existence to go out in the 'wild'.
You have a farmer friend that permits you onto some intensively farmed monoclture. Finding your quarry is simple and with a bit of field experience and age you know at what time to go out to play. You use expensive optics and use a lethal weapon that should only be used in a war, all so you can kill a defenceless little Fox that weighs about as much as a cat. This is what you call sport. This is what society calls deluded!
You have no love or respect for the "pests" that you needlesly murder. Your love of the Fox is your love of what the animal gives you. You love the thrill of chase, the unexpected. I don't believe you enjoy the kill as much as many on here would say but its part of your buzz. The difference between you and me is you love what the quarry can give you whereas wildlife is in my heart.
You have no respect for nature and even less for wildlife.
Like the farmers that feed the pests to enjoy the hunt- Fact!
When the ban comes they then say they will not tolerate vermin.
This is typical of the double standard hunt fraternity. The Beutiful Fox is a "verminous pest".
Should one of their precious Horses sneeze then a vet is summoned. You play God with nature. That should live,that should die etc.
For Centuries Malcolms have murdered Wild creatures for entertainment value alone.
The irony comes when an enlightend society justifiably
controls their 'sport'as they have been controlling wildlife.
When this happens they behave like
the delinquents they are. Like a baby thats dropped its rattle they squeel hysterically and shout
prejedice and liberty.
Get a grip Malcolm!

Malcolm Stevas

I suppose in a way it's flattering to be accused of plagiarism, but I must tell you I've never read any books by Robin Page. It doesn't surprise me at all that such a sensible person as he should also have suggested you & other Bambi-ists get your ideas about wildlife from Disney.
And although you cite some sort of wildlife-friendly CV it's clear that you are incapable of any sort of objectivity when it comes to fieldsports! Your tirade of lurid accusations is so bizarre it's actually funny. Trouble is, when you seem so obdurately attached to your delusions, it's difficult to see much point in trying to convince you that I and all the others I know who go shooting, fishing etc, do it in part because we love the natural world. I've never met anyone - gamekeeper, pheasant rearer, farmer - who wanted to wipe out any species of pest: control is what it's all about, combined with man's innate instinct to hunt. If you genuinely lack this instinct it makes you atypical - but don't start getting bitter about those of us who acknowledge that humans are hunters, and revel in it as part of our engagement with the natural world. And try to learn something about firearms - every responsible adult should...


The 'Pest' factor
You (Malcolm) have accused other posters on here of holding Disney-esque and ignorant views regarding field 'sports'.(very Robin Page).
You say that the Fox can become a pest which then justifies you to go out and play games with guns.
(how old are you?. one wonders?)
Lets look into the pest factor more deeply. It was the Malcolms of the day that slaughtered and eradicated the Brown Bear from Britain. Then the Grey Wolf, the Wonderful Lynx, the beaver, the Sea Eagle. The Malcolms then pushed the Wildcat deep into the Highlands . The Common Buzzard was exterminated throughout the Eastern Half of Britain along with the Red Kite etc etc.
Malcolms would walk the river banks and remove or break Kingfishers eggs (the pests were eating small fish).
The King of the Mustelidae (Otter)was such a pest that Malcolms bred special Hounds to push them near extinction as late as the 1970's.
Not to forget the Hare etc etc ..

My real life experinceie (job) ,M ,is confined to daily contact with Wildlife.
My in-laws that have farmed for generations take a post Malcolm view on the Fox.
The Fox clears up the mice, rats,Grey squirels, rabbits etc and is regarded as an asset to daily farm life.The farm has Buzzards, Owls, Roe Deer as well as Badgers, Hares etc.
Barn owls are within a few miles and are now being actively encouraged .One of the main reasons for such Wildlife bonanza is the lack of Malcolms. They come around and ask to play games with their toys but are as welcome as a dose of Foot and Mouth.



Elisabeth, your entire post hinges on the assumption that hunting foxes with hounds is cruel, and I say you’re wrong. An awful lot of words have been expended on this over the years and I’m reluctant to add to the score, but let me just repeat (wearily) that (a) a fox is a rather dainty beast which when caught by a (much larger, heavier, stronger) hound is killed by having its neck broken, i.e. almost instantly. For a fox to be chased is entirely within the natural order: bigger fiercer creatures chase smaller weaker ones. Shooting? When a fox is hit in the torso by one of my high-velocity frangible bullets it is dead before it hits the ground. And I’ve never met anyone – hunter, shooter, angler, ferreter – who showed signs of getting perverse kicks out of just killing something; the sportsman traditionally takes pride in the thrill of the chase followed by a clean kill.
If you don’t like fieldsports that is entirely up to you, but if you’re going to go beyond simple dislike, and support efforts to deprive people of the freedom to hunt/shoot etc, you have a duty to inform yourself more accurately about your subject, rather than repeating these strange gory fantasies about cruelty…
I’m afraid “You are so out of touch” clearly translates as, “I disagree with your position and do not recognise your freedom to differ in your opinion from mine…”
“By the way Malcolm, you must know that there is proven link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to mankind?” Thanks for the link, but it’s not remotely relevant: the kind of people who torture their pets might well go in for abusing people too – as do your friends in the ALF and Hunt Saboteurs, those cheery folk who claim to love animals but commit horrid acts of vandalism and violence against their fellow humans. I’m afraid your implied suggestion is more fantasy indicating that you might never have left the suburbs, never mingled with country people, never looked into fieldsports with anything like an enquiring mind. If you had done these things you would have learned that country people who go hunting etc are some of the best folk you could wish to meet – humane, decent, generous. By and large they don’t go around trying to coerce others into accepting their own fanciful notions, either – unlike Paul Flynn MP:
“As a species we should have abandoned that a long time ago,” he writes, which is a tendentious & philistine opinion, and even worse since he is one of those seeking to impose his opinions on others by force of law. Humans pursue the creatures of the wild: it’s one of the things we do best. It’s part of us – socially, culturally, anthropologically. If Sainsbury’s closes for two weeks, you lot will be out there chasing rabbits (probably very ineffectually) unless you’ve decided it’s easier to kill & eat one another… Many millions of people the world over go hunting in some way: they & I reject Mr Flynn’s prescription. Flynn relies for support on his standing urban majority whose view of foxes is hardly formed by experience or careful study, but by sentiment & propaganda: he calls this ‘democracy’, I call it a tyrannical abuse of democracy. He probably doesn’t care about that, since for political zealots a spot of tyranny is fine so long as it’s your own side doing it…
As for the little story, “..asked whu [sic] not drop the animal abuse and take up drag-hunting?His answer was, 'That would be like kissing your sister.'I presume the meaning was that they would not [experience?]the excitement and thrill of a sexual encounter.”
I presume this is a joke! If not, you have a remarkably prurient imagination…
Finally from Judi, it’s more of the same. I doubt if I will ever understand why so many otherwise apparently intelligent people cannot or will not avoid the use of wildly prejudicial terminology when attempting to discuss hunting: “hunt thugs”, “killing for entertainment”, “gratuitous cruelty”, Oh Dear… If you imagine there is some sort of point to posting messages on the subject, Judi, what do you hope to achieve when you write like this? It simply confirms that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and further alienates a great many people who already resent what they see as typical New Labour control-freak bossiness.

Malcolm Stevas

Well well, something that on the face of it resembles logical argument from Patrick - makes a change, P, and an improvement on your more excitable posts. However, you're still fantasising - principally, you're (deliberately one supposes) painting a fantastical picture of myself, based on nothing better than your own lurid prejudices. I'm mildly impressed that you know the word 'vulpine' - but you know nothing about rifles, bullets, or my shooting modus operandi...
It would be too boring, and wasted effort besides, to correct each of your gratuitous mistakes. But let's just say (a) I suspect I know more than you about foxes, including their diet (I've watched a fox crawling on its belly, eating worms off dew-sodden grass; I've inspected fox scats filled with the wing-casings of beetles...) and (b) my fox shooting is not dependent on whatever I think/know about fox predation on livestock but upon what farmers know - the farmers on whose land I shoot foxes. they know, as did their fathers before them, that foxes need controlling otherwise they can become a pest. I doubt extremely whether your views are based on their sort of real-world experience. Your slurs are merely hot air, fired by prejudice. And don't knock adrenaline - maybe you get yours from computer games, or.. no, I won't speculate; I get mine from wholly traditional, wholesome outdoor pursuits, like untold generations before me. That you find this reprehensible is a pitiful shame, but it's to your discredit not mine.
Tally ho! Malcolm


I always hold a high regard for original and individual opinions.
At least i thought Malcolm had some of his own views. The Disney-esque passage you quoted earlier (Malcolm) was almost word for word from a Robin Page book.
But let's take a look into the world of Malcolm.
As he's stated he has shot many foxes with his lethal weapon.He no doubt dresses up like Rambo and goes around looking for a vulpine victim.Some days he's unlucky and sees nowt but on others he's lucky enough to pump a few rounds from his "High-velocity" rifle with, would you believe, " frangible" bullets. How thoughtful of you Malcolm to choose that bullet instead of another.When he's shot his Fox he's really excited like a little schoolboy having won at conkers.He gets home and phones his buddies and tells them how great he is that he lay in a ditch downwind for three hours but managed to kill a big Dog Fox (in reality a Dog Fox weighs on average about 6.5 KG).
But Let's look at reasons to maybe manage Foxes.
1-Perhaps they are being a nuisance to poultry keepers. In most cases a Fox that will close quarter a Farmstead is usually sick and is looking for easy food.
From stomach analysis studies by Proffessor David Macdonald we know that a farm Fox eats mainly Worms, Fruit, Rabbits and Rats with poultry making up a tiny portion of the diet. But lets say that a sick rouge Fox is becomming a nuisance then I accept he should be shot.
2-In a highly sensitive Nature Reserve.
In SSSR'S where there are rare bird species i accept that a level of control must have to be asserted.
3- Upland Hill Farms.
Sometimes Foxes can be a problem at lambing time and will need a level of control ie (Cumbria, North Wales).
But let us take note that in an age where we have high power optics and excellent digital cameras we still do not have a film showing foxes killing a live Lamb. We know that they will eat afterbirth and dead lambs. I have a video of a Vixen (that I could identify positively and knew she had cubs at the time) that was being kept away from a dead rabbit by a Lamb.
The Lamb was licking a wet log near to the Rabbit and would not move. The result was that the Vixen waited until the Lamb moved on.
The above are reasons where I think the sane majority of people will realise that control is needed.
Do any of the above apply to Malcolm?
Does he shoot foxes to protect his big Free range chicken Farm? I doubt it.
Does he shoot Foxes to protect rare birds in his SSSI? I doubt that also.
Does he kill to look after his upland farm lamb stock? Need I answer?
Malcolm shoots and kills for pure adrenaline.
One thing beyond doubt in all this
is that to shoot a Wild animal in Malcolm's world is an act of unprovoked, motiveless cowardice!


Judi, the lie is given to the foolish 'class' bias accusaton in that we support drag hunting which is carried out by the same 'class' that pursue foxkilling hunting.


I think it is fascinating that Boris Johnson is being investigated for doing a 'George Osborne' and it's being reported as though it doesn't really matter that he didn't understand the rules.

Judi Hewitt

Malcolm, you are so way off the mark on many points. But your silly class issue accusation is a nonsense and I think you know it.
It seems to be only a problem with people like you who go out killing for fun.
Incidentally, I have many land owning friends, (including a sister) with pots of money, who would never allow hunt thugs onto their land. Basically because they consider killing for entertainment horrible and don't want to be associated with people capable of such gratuitous cruelty.
Just recently a retired sheep farmer told me she hated hunts on her land, because they chopped up the grass and disturbed her animals. She claimed never to have a problem with foxes, so didn't want them killed.

Roger Jardine Thomas

CA: if you don't let us hunt foxes the horse gets it.

But that's your horse.

CA: Yes

So the basis of your blackmail threat is, we are supposed to have more compassion and love for your animal than yourself.

CA: Yes


And they got a Channel 4 political award?

Roger Jardine Thomas

What was all that with the blackmail of shooting of horses and dogs. (Photo of dead horse)

If hunting was banned. They shoot the animals and that was supposed to make people feel bad.

Is it not posible to enjoy a horse for just riding. So the existence of a horse is only commected with the hunting for pleasure of another sentient mammal.

it shows how much compassion they have for their own animals if they are willing to use them as hostages.

A horse does not cost anymore to keep if not being used for hunting. So why kill it, in some bizarre PR hostage scenario.


The secret of the appeal of foxhunting was revealed by the Tory MP the late Sir Michael Colvin in a debate of a failed hunting bill in the eighties.
I intervened on his speech and asked why not drop the animal abuse and take up drag-hunting?

His answer was, 'That would be like kissing your sister.'

I presume the meaning was that they would not have the experience of the excitement and thrill of a sexual encounter. The remark does expose the reason why hunters are so reluctant to abandon animal deaths. The thrill is in chasing and killing a living animal.

As a species we should have abandoned that a long time ago.

Gill Purser

Should we be at liberty to cause unnecessary suffering by setting a pack of dogs to hound a fox, deer or hare to a point of exhaustion before it is savaged to death, all for the sake of 'amusement'? Of course not! Hunt supporters take appalling liberties with our wildlife and our countryside and this is the only context in which the word 'liberty' can be used in this debate.

Elisabeth H

You are so out of touch. Despite years of threats, intimidation, and pleas and finally cries of despair from the bloodsports lobby, their cruel perverted “pastime” has been consigned to the history books.

All animal lovers in this country and beyond know that weaning somebody of the perversion of inflicting wilful pain on a defenceless animal, for sport, will probably take time and I don’t know whether counselling is an effective remedy – perhaps a Psychologist would be better qualified to comment, here. By the way Malcolm, you must know that there is proven link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to mankind? Police Officers when visiting homes where cases of Child abuse and domestic violence are reported or suspected, are trained to assess the well being of any household pets present. Indeed, The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) acknowledges the link too and here’s what they have to say;

“Child abuse and domestic violence
5. Given the links between animal and child abuse and domestic violence, a veterinary surgeon reporting suspected animal abuse to the relevant authority should consider whether a child might be at risk”. But don’t take my word for it - you can read it for yourself on the RCVS website, here: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/PrintFullArticle.asp?NodeID=89642#89740

There is no place or excuse for cruelty “in the politics of liberty” Malcolm and by the way, banning bloodsports has nothing to do with so-called class hatred either. Cruelty, as we all know, transcends class.

Malcolm Stevas

"People like you think yours is the monopoly view in the countryside and that is far from the case."
Talk about missing the point, Chris... The central theme of my recent posts on Flynn's blog (God! Why did my chum direct me to it..) has been that of the overriding importance of individual freedom, based on a sense of political liberty that is, I'm afraid lost on Paul Flynn and his like - which appears to include yourself.
Whether one disapproves or approves of hunting should not be an issue, in any right-thinking society.
Patrick asks, "Are you proud of your 'sport' Malcolm?" to which I reply, it's not my sport - that's not the point. I've hardly sat on a horse, let alone ridden to hounds, though I've shot lots of foxes with a rifle... I'm interested in the politics of liberty, which means resisting the vicious authoritarians who seek to impose their ignorant restrictions on other people largely on the basis of class hatred, Disney-esque views about wildlife, and an arrogant belief in the incontrovertibility of their collectivist nostrums.
I don't think I'm pedantic - but perhaps you should write a little more carefully so as to avoid misunderstandings.


Malcolm, as you are so pedantic you might like to read back and notice that i attributed the quote starting 'How narrow' etc to the late John Muir.
Another correction ,the word legally was in capitals as we in the country all know that hunting with hounds has not stopped since the ban.
When 'overgrown frogs on horseback' mostly from urban areas
could legally partake in their frequent lust for wild blood the local constabulary would attend popular hunts in order to safeguard the well being of the fellow police, judges etc.
Just to make sure that the Antis didn't attend and perhaps cause a nuisance. Now that hunting is illegal but is still continuing there is not a constable in sight.
Just ask anybody in the countryside or who is involved in Animal welfare!
We the 'Real country people' know all about your "sport".
Blocking up all the earths the night before a hunt, not with mud etc but with Stone.
I know because I remove them!

Digging up a pregnant Vixen,then Shooting her before handing her to the hounds.
Are you proud of your 'sport' Malcolm?

Chris Gale

Malcolm, along with a great many other people who live in rural areas I disagree with killing for fun.
People like you think yours is the monopoly view in the countryside and that is far from the case.
As for your 'wild, unconstrained hunting', yes we know all about that. The breeding of foxes, the digging out, the hounds shot when they no longer have the stamina for a long chase, the thugs on quadbikes, the badger baiters who are well known as the hunts bully boys.
I could go on but compassion has won and your sort lost and there are better ways to spend time than replying to cruel thugs like you.

Malcolm Stevas

Well, I didn't think I needed to spell out the obvious, i.e. it is predominantly authoritarians - which today means the Left since there is no significant authoritarian Right - who inveigh against hunting with hounds and other fieldsports, and seek to suppress the adherents of such pursuits by means of oppressive dictatorial legislation.
There have always been a few opponents of fieldsports, opposed on ethical grounds or merely through eccentricity, and the individuals you mention typify the latter - Anne W is famously eccentric, and Alan Clark was perhaps more knowledgeable in the bedroom than in the field... Your references to badger baiting etc are daft, irrelevant: confining an animal to torment it is not remotely comparable with hunting it in the wild, unconstrained.
I wonder where you live: I very much 'live with our wildlife" meaning I live in the countryside and am intimately acquainted with wildlife; this means that I have a realistic relationship with the animal world, and have no qualms about pursuing creatures for the purpose of control combined with sport - as people have done for millennia... If you don't understand this it's your loss, chum!

Chris Gale

"I detest is the notion, promulgated by the authoritarian Left (when it suits them) that majority/mass opinion should necessarily translate into the suppression of minority pursuits."

Oh yes I forgot those lefties like Widdy Widdecombe, Roger Gale MP,the late Alan Clark MP and that well known Marxist Sir Patrick Moore, all of are against hunting with dogs.

As for 'suppression of minority pursuits', yes indeed while were at it lets legalise badger baiting, cock fighting and send kids down the mines again shall we?

Try looking in your heart and live with our wildlife instead of wanting to kill it for 'sport'.

Malcolm Stevas

Mick A says, "i am still able as are most of the country to form a view, that it is cruel, outdated and uncivilised" as he is perfectly at liberty to do. I am at one with Voltaire on the free expression of opinion. What I detest is the notion, promulgated by the authoritarian Left (when it suits them) that majority/mass opinion should necessarily translate into the suppression of minority pursuits.
Patrick writes, "One Hundred and Forty-One years later malcolm is tormented because he cannot 'LEGALLY' partake in the
'full pursuit of the unedible by the unspeakable'."
Watch those upper-case letters, Patrick! Take care with your quotations! try to avid hyperbole! ('tormented' indeed)It's 'inedible' BTW, and it would be polite to attribute it correctly to Mr Wilde, though he was more of a professional wit than an authority on fox hunting...
As for Chris Gale (neither a wit nor an authority on fox hunting, one infers)his assertions might have some small value if they were accompanied by illustration & argument. "People across the country from all sections of society wrote to their MPs, campaigned, signed petitions etc to see it banned." he says. So what? Is this a profound argument too subtle for me to grasp, or just more crudely implied argument in favour of majoritarian tyranny of the sort evidently approved by Paul Flynn?
Paul Flynn MP does not seem to enjoy especially imposing supporters... One wonders if the Newport (West)constituency party ever looks at this blog and pauses for thought about the (frankly) simple minded assertions made by himself and his supporters which pass for argument.
Yours aye, Malcolm

Chris Gale

The only 'infantile tosh' is that spouted by the likes of Simon Hart and Kate Hoey.
Hunting with dogs is the most disgusting activity which was why it was banned.
People across the country from all sections of society wrote to their MPs, campaigned, signed petitions etc to see it banned.


A quote for malcolm.

"How narrow we selfish,conceited creatures are in our sympathies! How blind to the rights of all the rest of creation!

John Muir 1867

One Hundred and Forty-One years later malcolm is tormented because he cannot 'LEGALLY' partake in the
'full pursuit of the unedible by the unspeakable'.

How little have we learned?

The foxes only crime is that he is 'good sport'.


Mick Antoniw

Is it necessary to participate in hunting whether by dogs, or shooting to be able to form an opinion. i live in the country. i detest hunting. i have seen it going on. i know others in the countryside who also dislike hunting but will not speak openly for fear of reprisals.i have never been badger baiting, cock fighting or bear dancing, but i am still able as are most of the country to form a view, that it is cruel, outdated and uncivilised.

Malcolm Stevas

I wasn't referring to the CA - I'm not a member and I dare say they can look after themselves. Chiefly, I referred to your excitable, insulting vocabulary whenever you discuss fieldsports. Do you not think it would be more civilised (a word you've used more than once)to avoid the wild hyperbole in which you indulge routinely? I mean, you don't so much argue as hurl insults and make sweeping, tendentious assertions - which only encourages your less thoughtful followers to chip in with yobbish references to "morons" etc, rather than facilitating sensible debate.


Do you disagree? What CA promise came true. Who would belive them now?

Malcolm Stevas

Re Afghanistan there is some truth in what you say, but where Afghanistan is concerned all rational bets are off - and this has been the case for the 200 years or so of Britain's occasional involvement... We shouldn't have confined ourselves to that benighted country but gone on immediately to smash the Taliban/Al Qaeeda in the Pakistan border areas too, whether the Paks liked it or not, then left them to it rather than trying to bring democracy & sanity to an inherently undemocratic, irrational, primitive, irredeemably savage hellhole. I know Afghans who got out, who feel as I do.
Re the CA I see you are unrepentantly banging the same drum. You say in your usual self-delusory (or plain mischievous) way, "It’s hunting that has enraged the tormentors" - so nothing changed there, then: exactly the same sensationalist hyperbole, the same tendentious name-calling, that does not "enrage" but does call for correction. I don't know how you address the House (if ever you do) but I dare say you choose your words more circumspectly, more wisely...
"The only argument for repeal is to restore the pleasure of killing living animals... gratuitous cruelty.... wanton cruelty..."
One wonders to what extent you believe this infantile tosh, or whether you simply know it's the kind of garbage your typical supporters love to hear and the end justifies the means so you care nothing for truth, accuracy, boring things like those..?
It's difficult to conduct a sensible discussion with someone who abuses the truth and debases the meaning of words like this. Again, I suggest we deserve better from an MP, even if it's only a blog that is probably ignored by the vast majority of his constituents. Have you ever been hunting, shooting, or fishing, I wonder? Might you ever accept an invitation to see what actually happens, so that you might begin to talk sense about these activities?


Midnight writing? This is beyond the call of duty. Agree with all the sentiments. Many thanks.

Jolly Roger

We have no business in Afghanistan.
We invaded without a post-war plan.
The Afghans are happy growing their opium.
Without the West's unwarranted opprobrium.

For generations others have said,
That the Afghans simply need to be led.
Not by themselves, it must be us.
I really think that we've missed the bus.

Ashdown's offer has been rejected.
The Taliban's profits must be protected.
I think that for us, the wisest expedient.
Would be to commercialise Diamorphine's ingredient.

The analgesia that brings relief.
And alleviates the dying's grief,
Is currently in short supply
And makes me wonder, why, oh why?
We burn it daily in THEIR fields,
And deny the pain-wracked the relief that it yields.

Tangential vision could get this nailed.
And when our current war plans have failed.
The Afghans could become our friends.
And reap the rewards that Morphine lends.
Theirs is the best, there is no doubt.
So let's pay up and export it out.

My considered thoughts spoke in this verse,
Are a manifestion of my rhyming curse.
I hope you'll consider what I've said,
With your normally serious head.
And as I go to bed, dear Paul,
I'll just say Goodnight one and all.


Agree entirely Ian. We are now an easy target. It's the perception of sleaze that is being conveyed. In no fair media would Alan Johnston's non-scandal have been an item of news all day.


There is no comparison between what Peter Hain let happen in his name and what Alan Johnston has apparently done. The press are attacking a static target at present with Gordon's Govt. He needs to set the agenda and move on.

The comments to this entry are closed.