« Vain search for lazy MPs | Main | Hypocrisy R Us »

September 09, 2009

Comments

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

Kay Tie

"I would be interested in finding out more and it does need to be examined. But it needs to be examined properly not by people looking for any excuse to swipe a red pen through assistance for people who need it and rely on it"

I agree with you. My interest has nothing to do with denying assistance to people who need it. We can easily afford such assistance and providing help for the helpless is the hallmark of a decent civilisation.

Kay Tie

"So we should all view laws as to how one perceives they were drafted and then on that basis choose which ones to obey."

Don't be facetious. The law is badly drafted and full of loopholes, which people exploit. In other words, they are obeying the letter of the law.

patrick

"Secondly, the vast majority of the people engaging in hunting aren't breaking the law. This is the because the drafting of the law was a complete horlicks"

Thank you KT for making the above point.

So we should all view laws as to how one perceives they were drafted and then on that basis choose which ones to obey.

Utter cobblers!

The fact remains that Thousands of people will be illegally hunting this Autumn.

THE POLICE WILL DO NOTHING!

HuwOS

As far as
"It's an extraordinary claim that with modern medicine a tenth of the people in this country are too sick to work."

Modern medicine allows us to keep many people alive who in previous generations would have died. There may be an input from modern medicine to the percentage of people who are alive but unfit to work.

I would be interested in finding out more and it does need to be examined. But it needs to be examined properly not by people looking for any excuse to swipe a red pen through assistance for people who need it and rely on it, especially when their driving purpose is self serving disbelief.

HuwOS

But KayTie, in terms of those claiming benefit for incapacity or other medical reasons, we already have the evidence, that is why they get paid it.
It is not me who needs to prove anything, we have doctors examining claimants on behalf of the state to confirm or disagree with the patients own doctors, specialists and what all else, diagnoses.
Where the state appointed medical practitioners disagree, the claimants don't get anything.
So the proof required is very clearly with you as those already in receipt of benefits due to being unfit for work have already been confirmed as such by both their own medical teams and those of the state.

Then we get to the side that you and young mister cameron are on, and what you have is a disbelief.
Well nurture your disbelief all you like but if you have no evidence to back it up then people will simply see you as someone locked up in their own self serving idealogical dreamworld where you are prepared to allow people to suffer for your own groundless personal disbeliefs.


Kay Tie

"evidence would clearly be required to make your case."

You've got the default the wrong way around. You're the one asking me to pay money in taxes to hand over to six million people. You're the one who has to make the case for them needing it.

It's an extraordinary claim that with modern medicine a tenth of the people in this country are too sick to work. Anyone who claims that has to put up some evidence and an explanation for this extraordinary situation.

HuwOS

Ah KayTie I see you are fully with Cameron on this issue.
It is not a matter of proof or evidence, merely one of belief.
In January 2008 Cameron enunciated
"I don't believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all."
No evidence, nothing other than belief.
The new Tony Blair.

Perhaps it defies medicine, science, history and logic and perhaps it does not, certainly we would all like to see an explanation, however evidence would clearly be required to make your case.
Perhaps this is one where you should take your own advice to Paul and stick with what you really know.

Kay Tie

"Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of people receiving benefits are not in need of and entitled to them and more importantly, do you have any evidence to back it up."

No, not at all. I am sure that the vast majority are entitled to the benefits. It's just that they shouldn't be entitled. It defies medicine, science, history and logic that a tenth of the population are so ill as to be medically unfit for work and in need of help. For years, starting under the Tories, people have been encouraged to define themselves as incapacitated in order to massage the unemployment statistics. This is just madness and is economically unsustainable.

Kay Tie

"a large number of people choose to act illegally without any consequence."

Firstly, I'll take the outrage at people choosing to act illegally as synthetic since the Left consistently argued the justice of civil disobedience back when the Tories were in power (remember Tommy Sheridan and the Poll Tax non-payment campaign?).

Secondly, the vast majority of the people engaging in hunting aren't breaking the law. This is the because the drafting of the law was a complete horlicks. A hallmark of New Labour "send a message" legislation under Tony Blair (only a barrister could have such utter contempt for the process of making laws).

HuwOS

To the best of my knowledge patrick the law is followed.
Like any law there will be some breaches, deliberate or pushing the boundaries.
There are still however the anti hunting nuts who keep track of their brethren the hunting nuts and if it were happening to any degree there would be evidence, police and court involvement.
The only case recently that I am familiar with is a hare coursing event from 2007 involving muzzled dogs where apparently the organisers were under the impression that they were complying with the law.

The point however is, that the law is there, there is no danger of the tories undoing the law, the tories are however capitalising on their perceived opposition to it to keep their hunting nut voters on board with meaningless promises.

And your only current issue is with enforcement, although as far as I can tell it is being enforced.

Should Paul not only make the fox hunting ban an issue in the next election but perhaps also his opposition to corporal punishment in schools and the use of the welsh knot while he is at it.


patrick

Huw
What presently matters is that an "issue that doesn't matter" was made illegal but that a large number of people choose to act illegally without any consequence.

Thousands of people will be FOXHUNTING this Autumn!

Lots of laws are illthoughtout even stupid like drug classification but surely we would agree that a law should be followed?

In the foxhunting world of gentry ,large landowners, farmers , judges, solicitors, vets etc ..... British law does not apply.

patrick

PF
"Others are not prepared to risk the consequences and they have change to foxhunting"

I take it you meant to say draghunting in the above statement.

"If the ban was not working why should the Tories risk unpopularity by ending the ban."

The Tories are fighting the "predjudice and unjustices" of some members of society not being able to torture wildlife.
Music to the ears of most Tory voters and also to an ever increasing band of Brits that feel their liberties are being eroded by an authoritarian state.Not that much of a risk.
My main question was why is this law being upheld?


HuwOS

Once again the Tories aren't saying they will end the ban.
They are saying they will allow a free vote on whether the ban should be upheld or not.
The only way they would be showing any genuine commitment to ending the ban is if it were their policy to abolish it, it is not so it is clear that they have no intention of doing so.
So what can they do to keep their fox hunting supporters sweet, hmmm...

It's a promise with no consequences on an issue that doesn't matter.

paul flynn

PART OF THE REASON THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE 'FOX' HUNTING PATRICK IS THAT MANY OF THEM ARE DRAGHUNTING. Certainly some are continuing to break the law. Others are not prepared to risk the consequences and they have change to foxhunting,
.

If the ban was not working why should the Tories risk unpopularity by ending the ban.

HuwOS

KayTie
In response to my comment that
"The coming budgets are going to be unpleasant for most, but particularly those most vulnerable those most in need of support."
You said
"I don't think that's necessary. We are a rich nation and can easily afford to look after people who are genuinely in need of help."

Yes Britain is a rich nation and it can easily afford to look after people, cuts to such services are unnecessary but they are easy and there are many ideologically opposed to doing just that.
Exemplified in the Tory party of course but not limited to them, there are plenty in new Labour who would also and do also take the view that cuts or elimination of benefits to those most in need of them are not only easiest to do but can be politically popular, because those affected are generally the people who have no real voice in the nation and who are all to easy to overlook and ignore.


"There are also six million people of working age who are economically inactive. Are you seriously suggesting that all of these people are in genuine need of help?"

We have all kinds of checks and balances on people receiving benefit and while I am sure there are individuals who are perhaps receiving assistance that are conning the system, we spend a lot of money each year to catch people who play the system in that way.
Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of people receiving benefits are not in need of and entitled to them and more importantly, do you have any evidence to back it up.


patrick

What interests me at present is not what the Tories are going to do regarding hunting after the next election but why are the current laws not being enforced.

As Foxhunting is illegal then why

- are there now more people doing it than before the ban?

- do the police do nothing to uphold the law?

It matters little what parliament decides to be law if the enforces of such laws decide to turn blind eyes.

Just out of interest (if you live in hunt country) when the vermin ride through your patch (as Thousands will this Autumn) try phoning plod and see what happens.......
i'll tell you......NOTHING!

Kay Tie

"the new view from the Hubble telescope. Marvellous!"

Absolutely. The new near-infrared imaging is working fantastically well (infrared is not blocked by dust and we can see so much better when combined with optical imaging).

Kay Tie

"The coming budgets are going to be unpleasant for most, but particularly those most vulnerable those most in need of support."

I don't think that's necessary. We are a rich nation and can easily afford to look after people who are genuinely in need of help. But we have millions of people in relatively highly paid jobs doing - at best - nothing for public services. These people can find more productive work where they won't actively be making things worse for the public.

There are also six million people of working age who are economically inactive. Are you seriously suggesting that all of these people are in genuine need of help? Millions of people have been indulged by a neglectful state, and it is costing a fortune. This is an ever-increasing financial burden borne by fewer and fewer working people. It cannot go on like this.

Kay Tie

"Saving a lot of wasted money by legalising currently banned drugs, would help the economy, cut crime and do away with drug pushers, reducing need for prison places etc."

I think that legalising drugs would probably do more fiscally than any other measure the Government could take.

HuwOS

I don't get the impression that votes were being bought there Paul although I do understand that you wish to give the impression that they are being.

But a promise to have a free vote on whether to overturn the fox hunting ban is not much of a promise is it.
The tories cannot lose with that, they have the vote, it fails, well they did what they said they would do.
If they have the vote and it passes, then there is vastly less support for the ban than we thought.

We are in the midst of a financial crisis, the economy and jobs are major issues, ongoing wars and potential future wars concern people although considerable less than crime jobs and income.

Some of your stances could be helpful (although unlikely to be vote winners)
Saving a lot of wasted money by legalising currently banned drugs, would help the economy, cut crime and do away with drug pushers, reducing need for prison places etc.

The coming budgets are going to be unpleasant for most, but particularly those most vulnerable those most in need of support.

Please tell me that highlighting your commitment to maintaining the ban on fox hunting is nowhere near being in your top ten of issues to fight the election on.

Kay Tie

Shooting grouse is so cruel. The Labour approach is much nicer: state-run grouse factories, with de-beaked grouse kept in little cages.

I will take your grousing about Tory funding more seriously the day Labour stops selling legislation to the various trade unions and stops giving millions of taxpayers money to the unions in "modernisation" funds to pay for the legislation.

Actually, Labour isn't going to stop this corruption: the Tories will do it for you next year. I predict much bleating from union leaders on £160,000 salaries.

Paul Flynn

No the money is not large in terms of what the Lords Ashcroft and Laidlaw spend. Thanks to the present rules there is transparency but the impression is still there that votes can be bought. But the issue is an important one not just in itself but for all animal welfare. If inflicting avoidable pain on animals for fun is legitimised by Parliament it tacitly approves of other forms of animal abuse.
This man was a fulltime lobbyist for bloodsports. He is now the Tories spokesman on animal welfare. The voters should know this.

HuwOS

The donations don't exactly seem to be at life or position changing levels there Paul, and as donations are allowed it does not seem unreasonable that when a party or an MP takes a position people who support that position might then donate to them.

I'm no fan of hunting but I did feel that all the attention given to that activity rather distracted people from more serious issues at the time.

Although it is of course a characteristic of this country that more attention is given to animals in many cases than to people so it was not a great surprise.

Of course the tories get to benefit from the relatively small group of supporters and whatever donations they give for a non policy of allowing a free vote on whether to overturn the ban.
They know it won't be overturned, there just is not enough support for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.