Antis Original argument

[Nigel]

Hi All,

What happened to the original argument put forward by those opposed to hunting? Ban hunting because it is cruel, unnecessary and there is no evidence to suggest foxes would suffer as a result of the ban.

Regards

Nigel

 

[Hercules]

Nigel,

They thought that 'the ban' would prevent foxes being killed. As you are aware, even more a now being killed.

They thought that 'the ban' would prevent people (the sort of which they stereotype as toffs) following hounds. Even more people from all walks of life are now participating.

If you had wasted 80 years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to be wrong on all accounts, wouldn't you be lying low and licking your wounds?

 

[piebaldsparkle]

Lying low and licking their wounds - like the foxes which are shoot, and only injured!!!!!!!!!

 

[soggy]

Lying low and licking their wounds - like the foxes which are shoot, and only injured!!!!!!!!!

Precisely!

 

[Nigel]

Hi Hercules/SBB

Thank you for your response. The reason I posted that question was to see if those opposed to hunting could defend their much vaunted claim because that is the claim that got hunting banned in the first place. Need I say more.

Thank You

Nigel

 

[Nigel]

Hi All,


Given that antis pre Burns stated hunting was cruel and unnecessary and they pushed the ban through on this notion, against the foresight of 6 of their former high ranking employees and yet they are unable to defend themselves. Can we all agree they are a lying bunch of wnakers?

Cheers

Nigel

 

[jerryboy]

Nigel,

Are you capable of sensible debate or only of throwing childish insults?

Seems like your school holidays are dragging on too long.