« Invisible Slaughter | Main | The Secret life of Paul Murphy. »

January 24, 2008

Comments

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

Malcolm Stevas

Barry's post encapsulates key things to which I have already referred.
"..there is NO mass support for bringing in a law to kill animals for fun..."
'[killing] animals for fun' is exactly the phraseology that typifies the tendentious hyperbole undermining any claim by those employing it that their objections are mature, rational, objective...
'No mass support' - so what? Who gives a toss? Why should anyone's pursuit, in any society calling itself 'free', be dependent on 'mass support' whatever that might be - ? Does fox hunting impinge on your liberty in any way whatsoever? I doubt that extremely.

".. why foxes should be torn to shreds for Saturday morning entertainment.."
See above...

I do find it very worrying that people who doubtless spurn the sort of populist outrage they like to associate with readers of the red-top tabloids, should appear so willing to dispense populist majoritarian nostrums for the suppression of minority interests.
Would you claim superior moral sensibilities? Or some overriding moral right to diminish other people's liberty? Cobblers!
Malcolm

Hen Ferchetan

" The mean vindictive witch-hunters who have judged him guilty on the basis of smears and innuendos"

I guess I'd be one of the witch hunters, but as you well know I've judged him guilty on the law - his breach of which you continue to ignore.
There has been no smears and innuendos this time. Everyone seems to agree that Hain wasn't some criminal mastermind, just incompetent.

Barry

Chris Gales makes a very valid point actually. Tory support for hunting has always been very low-key and largely behind closed doors. The most you hear from them is luke-warm promises of a 'free vote' but how often do we hear an empassioned defence of hunting? They know full well, as do the CA, that there is NO mass support for bringing in a law to kill animals for fun. I would love to see Cameron stand up and explain why foxes should be torn to shreds for Saturday morning entertainment; it would guarantee his party's relegation to third place at the next election.

Malcolm Stevas

What a childish and literally pointless post by Chris Gale - hardly worth replying to, since there is not one substantive point made, but worth mentioning since it typifies the established taste of anti-hunting (etc) types for slanderous vituperation and silly name-calling when they don't get everything their own way. A taste shared, it seems, by Paul Flynn - see his latest reference to the CA, which is just more of the same... Really, one would have hoped an MP could do better.
Malcolm

Chris Gale

The killers for fun have got themselves into a right lather here haven't they Paul!
I mean they thought they had all the MPs silenced and how dare someone be critical of their sordid, barbarous habits!
Of course they think Cameron the hunter is going to ride to their rescue at the next election which is why they are pouring all their thugs into marginal seats.
Of course they are SO OPEN about all this that they have instructed their thugs not to mention once the issue of tearing animals apart for fun but pretend to be interested in anything other than that.

Malcolm Stevas

"Malcolm Stevas complains of rule by the majority.It's called democracy, Malcolm. It's started in Greece..."
Yes, thanks for that, Paul - I had sort of heard that somewhere, having read the odd book and attended the odd lecture... But perhaps you're being disingenuous, knowing full well the difference between majority rule, and the tyranny of the majority. Have you, er, read JS Mill I wonder?
To put it crudely, if 65% of those polled vote to have shoplifters flayed and crucified on the supermarket wall, do we do it? I think not. So much for majority rule, something invoked by Leftists when it suits their agendas but otherwise swept under the carpet.

"..the Hunting ban was a fully democratic decision."
See above. "Fully democratic" by your lights maybe. So when are we having that referendum on the EU, I wonder...

"Politicians have not only a right but a duty to act against cruelty to all animals. Those who mistreat dogs or horses are rightly punished by the law. I am sure the abusers insist of their rights to torment animals."
Humbug! This sort of wildly tendentious stuff demeans your argument - the pretence that hunting foxes with hounds amounts to "torment" is wildly fallacious, not remotely to be compared with (say) bear-baiting, and you know this full well. Doesn't stop you from saying this kind of thing repeatedly though, does it, because for people of your political disposition the end always justifies the means... Why do I think of Stalin whenever those words come up...
Malcolm

Malcolm Stevas

Ah, a less hysterical and quite interesting post from Patrick. Polite too.
"The biggest indiscriminate killer by a landslide is the litle pussy cat."
Good point, and pussy cats are an excellent illustration of the supremacy of emotion & self delusion, as opposed to rationality, in human-animal relations in the UK. All those animal-loving cat-owners close their eyes to the massive toll of songbirds and so on, because Tiddles is a sweet little pussy. Unfortunately this extends to other species such as foxes and badgers: the Badger Act was passed in the early '90s by what is, of course, an overwhelmingly urban-centred House of Commons, so that even though badgers are widely considered to be a worse pest than foxes it's almost impossible to control them without risking heavy penalties.

As for foxes, Patrick shows worrying symptoms of "cuddly bunny syndrome":
"Foxes happen to be one of the most fascinating,alluring, and intelligent mammal species which is precisely why the nation overwhelmingly baked the ban..."
Foxes are certainly attractive & very interesting creatures - but like any other animal species they need to be controlled. Not eradicated, just controlled - I've shot a great many of them, and the farmers whose lambs or poultry are at risk from foxes are grateful.
When "The nation overwhelmingly backed the ban" on hunting it was not, I suggest, because people loved its allure, its "intelligence", because most of them have never seen a fox in their lives and get their ideas about animals from Walt Disney anyway. No, it was good old sentimentality, with the anti-hunting show of hands being egged on by agenda-driven zealots such as Paul Flynn - who might very well be one of the huge majority never to have seen a fox, for all I know...
Malcolm

paulflynn

Why should the Hunting Act be repealed John Brown?

Remember the CA's campaigns that a hunting ban would:-
Destroy the countryside
Lose 35,000 jobs
End the pageantry of hunting
Create an increased fox population plus more sheep killing
Tens of thousands of hounds and horses put down

The results of the Ban are
Countryside economy is healthy
Increased jobs, because more people are hunting without cruelty
The Pageantry continues
The fox population is down - because foxes are no longer bred to be tormented
No animals put down.

The only argument to repeal the act is to restore the pleasure of killing a living animals that some hunters get off on. That will never win a majority in Parliament.

As the superior species, we have a duty to protect all other creatures from gratuitous cruelty. That is a measure of the quality of our civilisation. Slowly we progress. Permitting wanton cruelty blunts our sensitivities. Those who are indifferent to animal suffering are close to indifference to human suffering.

paulflynn

David Jones, you are living in a fantasy universe created by the Daily Mail's daily lies?

I have know Peter Hain since 1969 and greatly admire his qualities and his many achievements. There is no dis-honesty in the man. You are condemning him before the Police have even decided whether there is case to investigate.

The press are wildly biased. Tory sleaze is ignored. Have a look about the cover up of Tory sleaze on this blog. It was on Friday. Bet you did not read about this in the Tory press that has filled you with these twisted notions.

paulflynn

Malcolm Stevas complains of rule by the majority.

It's called democracy, Malcolm. It's started in Greece about 2,000 and is coming here in dribs and drabs. We still have undemocratic institution like the Lords and Monarchy, but the Hunting ban was a fully democratic decision.

Politicians have not only a right but a duty to act against cruelty to all animals. Those who mistreat dogs or horses are rightly punished by the law. I am sure the abusers insist of their rights to torment animals.

Slowly civilisation progresses. Bear-baiting, cock fighting are gone. Bull fighting is one the way out. there will be no retreat from the UK ban on the cruelty foxhunting

Those who believe otherwise are deceiving themselves. I have attended these debates for 21 years in Parliament and I have the watched the growing realisation from MPs of all parties (including Tories0 that this barbaric bloodsport has no place in Britain.

LACS Supporter

Patrick is quite right, and his experiences are not unusual. Hunting also had a horrendous impact on badgers as well as foxes. Blocking up setts, and not un-blocking them afterwards, and digging foxes out of them was common practice, resulting in desertion of the sett, and the death of badgers who were either locked out of, or into their setts depending on the time of day/night they were blocked. Those who care about animal welfare know all about that, and now, fortunately, thanks to years of campaigning, badgers are protected - though surprise - under threat again by farmers.
There have been so many ‘debates’ about hunting, too many in fact, with the Tories saying they’ll offer a free vote on it if they get in again, and the hunting fraternity desperately hanging on just in case. The public will be thrilled to know they can anticipate having to read and listen again to endless accounts of arguments for and against the ban, especially after the previous Tory complaints of wasting 700 (?) hours of debate and then ‘forcing’ the ban through. I suppose a question to be answered (which was raised on another blog) is that if no jobs were lost, no animals destroyed despite the threats of millions of horses and hounds being put down, and even more people hunting, why does the ban need repealing? Might not the public wonder why, with all that still in place, and everyone having such a good time still riding across the countryside and socialising with friends – which is the point of hunting isn’t it – the socialising - do you really need to kill foxes as well to further your enjoyment?
I suspect the public reaction may well be a very weary – you’ve been there and done that already – go away Dave.
Quite recently there was an article about hunting on CiF by the Tories favourite tally-ho totty, Kate Hoey. A commentator asked her to explain cubbing, but no response was forthcoming. Anyone here want to oblige?

Patrick

Reference to John Brown.
When 'killing for entertainment' was finally banned i believed that it was a step forwad for the nation but sadly a bad time for wildlife.John is right in that there are now more Foxes being destroyed than pre-ban.This fact takes us straight into the mindset of the hunt fraternity.
I know one farmer near Brecon that has been feeding 'vermin' for over Ten years and who went ballistic after catching poachers on his land with a dead fox.Was he sad about the fox? He was angry that his local hunt would be denied entertainment.
Landowners that previously 'tolerated vermin' now have no possible use for them and are far more inclined to shoot them.The added fact that telling a landowner he cannot do something can very often be counterproductive.
Contrary to this i know many enlightened , passionate wildlife friendly farmers that do a great job in helping nature.
'Foxes are indiscriminate killers'.
Like us foxes eat.The biggest indiscriminate killer by a landslide is the litle pussy cat. Why not chase and rip them to pieces john?
Foxes happen to be one of the most fascinating,alluring, and intelligent mammal species which is precisely why the nation overwhelmingly baked the ban.
Patrick

Malcolm Stevas

"With reference to the malcolm rant. ……… malcolms pathetic whimpers about "intolerance, viciousness, hateful laws and personal liberties" ………. I firmly believe in liberties especially the liberties of British Wildlife to live free from persecution from
sadistic morons…."

I wonder how old Patrick is. This is not, of course, necessarily a pertinent question in the case of zealous Leftists or animal-lib types, whose views all too often go hand in hand with a degree of immaturity. But really, Patrick should immediately consult a dictionary in order to check the definition of “rant” – a word that springs too readily to the lips, especially, of certain web-forum contributors on encountering views of which they disapprove – and ask himself what exactly it was about my post that could reasonably cause him to use the words “pathetic” and “whimpers”. Could it be that he dislikes what I say so much, and that it causes him such uneasiness in his skin, that he is compelled to lash out with the nastiest playground insults that occur to him? Has he (let’s be charitable) just had a bad day? Alas, this last idea is somewhat dispelled by his apparent belief that British wildlife enjoys “liberties” – funny, I thought liberty was a human concept, not capable of being either conceived or enjoyed by the animal kingdom – and that anyone who pursues the creatures of the wild is a “sadistic moron”… Is Patrick trying to outdo Paul Flynn in mean-minded vituperation against those he perceives to be opposed to him, culturally, socially, politically..? Is Patrick at all typical of Paul Flynn’s political allies, supporters, constituency committee? I do hope, for Mr Flynn’s sake, that this is not the case. I might not have much time for Mr Flynn, and even less for his views on country sports, but I would like to think he has a better class of friend than Patrick.
Yours, Malcolm
ps I too am struck - but not surprised, frankly - by Mr Flynn's support for "a scumbag like Peter Hain", someone I have distrusted with absolute consistency since the 1960s...

David Jones

I'm amazed that Flynn still supports a scumbag like Peter Hain. If he is so 'innocent', how come the donations in question were channelled through a front organisation? An organisation that doesn't do anything, has no people working for it and is fictitous in all but name! Any else would call this money laundering. If he had nothing to hide, why not be open about accepting the bungs? Why do you think the police have been involved ! I expect there will be the usual policy of non-cooperation from Labour, just like the 'cash for honours' inquiry,and then the police will be pressurised to drop the whole thing again. Honest? Upright? I don't think so. I voted for Labour in 1997 expecting a new start, new standards. Instead they have turned out to be worst than the Tories - God help us!

John Brown

Some facts (for Labour party MPs that means truths by the way)
- More foxes are killed now than before the hunting ban. Instead of being killed outright that are now shot - that's what Labour's stupid law insists on. That means many are wounded and die a lingering death instead of being killed quickly and cleanly by the pack leader
- The law will be repealed
- Foxes are classed as vermin. That means that they are the same as rats, cockroaches etc. Why? Because tehy are indiscriminate killers. Urban based idiots like Flynn will not understand this; they think foxes all have name like 'Basil' and wear little waistcoats. What sort of people oppose fox hunting? People who dig up the dead relatives of legitimate farmers. Is that the sort of person you want to associate with?

Patrick

With reference to the malcolm rant. I witnessed first hand several years ago a canny, spirited vixen outwit the hounds and huntsmen in a frenzied chase. The Vixen took to the ground in a badger sett.
With the light fading and the possibility of having nothing to talk about in the pub the huntsmen decided to dig her out.After the Vixen was shot and given to the Hounds and violently ripped into fragments it was noticed that she had been heavily pregnant. Not only had she outrun the pack but had done so with the increased weight inside her.
Having read malcolms pathetic whimpers about "intolerance, viciousness, hateful laws and personal liberties" i'm reminded of why the country will never bring back hunting. I firmly believe in liberties especially the liberties of British Wildlife to live free from persecution from
sadistic morons.
Patrick

Malcolm Stevas

"Thank you Malcolm. Hope you feel better now that's out."
Patronising, or what? Do you wish to promote "democratic" discussion & debate or not? Do you just require sycophantic nods of agreement such as Leftists traditionally engineer at their rigged meetings? When you don't get this, do you always sneer?

"The passing of the humane hunting act was the result of our democratic process where each MP voted once."
It's not an issue that should ever be voted upon by politicians, whether with class-warfare axes to grind or any other nasty little agendas. How free people in a free society (Hah!) choose to pursue traditional country sports is no business of political Prodnoses.

"We were elected by people who also voted once."
Humbug! Neither is hunting the business of the urban majority, whose prejudices are always going to out-vote the freedoms of the rural minority and never mind political liberty... But that is very likely something which causes you no lost sleep whatsoever.

"Try to calm down and accept the principles of democracy. Parliament will never vote to put the cruelty back into hunting."
I'm as calm as I'll ever be, in the face of grossly illiberal misuse of crude majority tactics to suppress pursuits which harm either you nor anyone else one jot. Your vision of democracy is one of a tyranny of the majority, deviously manipulated by those such as yourself whenever your agenda demands it. My broadly libertarian-conservative politics do not threaten your liberty in the slightest: your neo-Trot authoritarian collectivism manifestly damages my liberty. End of argument.

In your reply to Easy you say the CA "exist to promote bloodsports" - a travesty of the truth that I'm surprised to find even you trying to pass off as a sincerely held belief. The CA (no, I'm not a member) could be said to exist in order, originally, to defend the right to go hunting/shooting etc - though even that is a considerable over-simplification. Do try not to let your heated anti-rural fantasising get the better of you: and try to retain some respect for the truth, otherwise I shall worry even more about the sort of people helping (even in a very minor way) to run the country.
Malcolm

paulflynn

No Easy you have been mis-led.

They exist to promote bloodsports. the said 35,000 jobs would be lost by the Hunting Act. None were. Jobs were created by the move to drag hunting.


Their attempts to campaign on other rural issues is a front to gain goodwill.

paulflynn

Just for the record John Brown, no Labour MP has taken 'illegal backhanders'. But in my time in Parliament, five Tory MPs have been caught doing just that.

Peter Hain's donations were freely given, legal and used for their intended purpose.

David Cameron accepted illegal donations and used a fund, the Midlands Industrial Council, to launder money. Why not have a tantrum about that John?

paulflynn

Thank you Malcolm. Hope you feel better now that's out.

The passing of the humane hunting act was the result of our democratic process where each MP voted once. We were elected by people who also voted once. To gain any attention the CA, that failed to stop the bill or win their court challenges, has benefited from a ballot where people could vote 100 times.

Try to calm down and accept the principles of democracy. Parliament will never vote to put the cruelty back into hunting.

Malcolm Stevas

I'm glad someone directed me to this blog, though it's a somewhat perverse pleasure reading the sort of utterly predictable blend of ignorance & hateful zealotry one has encountered so often from leftists...

"What have the CA done that merits an award? The CA may merit a place in the history of the decade only for services to rigging ballots."
I wonder if this is actionable? The CA should be told... What they've done, in short, is to stand up to years of mindless aggression from authoritarian collectivists like yourself who seek to suppress traditional pursuits and personal liberties, based on a spurious concern for animal welfare combined with what is clearly a massive ignorance of the countryside and country sports. But you folk never let ignorance & prejudice keep you from agitating, or from passing hateful laws...
I am intrigued by what seems to be your stock response to opposition here (and to my direct email) of insulting anyone who disagrees with you, calling them bigots and the like. But it illustrates perfectly the Leftist mindset of intolerance, bossiness and political viciousness.
Yours etc - Malcolm
ps Your support for Hain is amusing - Hain, the quintessential self-seeking pragmatic sort-of-Socialist!

John Brown

Paul, you are seriously misguided about the CA. They support the whole of the country way of life and are not just campaining to repeal the pathetic, class envy riddle hunting act. Please look at the facts and stop promoting hate-based politics like so many of you and your sad left wing losers. Your days are numbered my freind, make the most of it while you still can - you and your type (Hain etc) won't be able to pocket the illegal backhanders, cash for honours etc dfor much longer

Chris Gale

Yes JH, do pop back and give us the wisdom of the killing for fun lobby, it makes great copy for showing the public what you are really all about.
Dale thinks he's a modern politician but allies himself with a bunch of bloodsports thugs who don't believe in democracy and are violent towards anyone who disagrees with them.

paulflynn

Thanks a lot JH. People like you really exist then? You are welcome to ventilate your crude bigotry here anytime. More ranting, please.

Chris Gale

Like Paul says, 'fanatics' is quite a tame description for these thugs who get off on tormenting and killing our wildlife for the perverted kicks they get from it.

JH

Being one of the 'bovine readers' of an allegedly right wing paper I very much appreciate Ian Dale sending me here to read this self-righteous nonsense.

The clear contempt you have for a signifcant percentage of the population is matched only by the contempt that we feel for you and your kind.

Vain broke the law and at best is guilty of gross incompetence so your delusional support of this man is almost as amusing as the sorry squealing you show that a leftie stitch up of some insignifcant awards left the panel with egg on their face...

paulflynn

Thanks Julian, for this valuable insight into the workings of your warped brain.

You are a lesson to us all.

Julian The Wonderhorse

Don't you lefties get spiteful when someone succeeds who is not on your message.

Bravo CA, and here's to more foxes being killed now than before the ban. Well done New Labour, another policy that has achieved the exact opposite of what was intended.

paulflynn

I thought 'fanatics' was excessively kind. Their prime passion is their need to kill animals for fun. In pursuit of that they engage in other campaigns to win popular support.

They want to put the cruelty back into hunting. They have lost all the arguments and now resort to cheating. At election time, they flood marginal seats with workers and money to un-seat Labour MPs. All in the cause of their own sadistic pleasure from a blood sports.

They are not nice people, easy.

paulflynn

There will pious celebrations in the panting heart of Rome, that a papal knight is ruling Wales.

Easy

Look, the CA might not quite deserve the award and they are bloody good at rigging things, but I think 'fanatics' is a bit strong. They're a campaign group for all country matters and not all right wing at all. Their hunt support is based on its providing a livelihood for people. Look into them. They're alright.

Geraint

So it's Paul Murphy. Marvellous - bloody marvellous.

valleylad

Peter Hain will be missed, but replacing him as SoS for Wales with the worst possible candidate short of John Redwood has done nothing for Brown's reputation with the likes of me. Oh well, at least the pope might be pleased :(

paulflynn

What have the CA done that merits an award? They lost their campaign against the Hunting Bill after spending spending a fortune on it. Then they promised to get rid of the Act through the courts and spent another fortune and lost every case.

The CA may merit a place in the history of the decade only for winning an award in a ballot when voters could cast 100s of votes each.

andrew kirkham

Sour grapes methinks , paul. 4 of the 6 chosen were left wing candidates ,1 of limited appeal and 1 ,Countryside Alliance, is on the right of the political spectrum. No wonder the C A won. The shooting in the foot was the original very odd choice by the panel

Chris Gale

Peter Hains departure is a loss for the politics of decency.
Multi millionaires like Lord Ashcroft fund the Tory party, with not a peep of interest from the press or BBC.
The right wing media agenda continues, determined as they are, along with powers in the establishment, that there will not be a fourth term Labour government.
I well remember how Peter Hain stood up to the bullies of the hunting fraternity, always a friend to those who campaigned long and hard for a ban on chasing and killing animals for 'sport'.

The comments to this entry are closed.