Blair comes clean

[Alec Swan]

Rosie,

my question was intended to be tongue-in-cheek! I can't do smilies, and hoped that the !, would do!!!!! I read somewhere that Blair was to donate the proceeds from his book to injured service men.

No Magistrate in this country would allow a criminal to make retrospective recompense, so how come Blair seems to be getting away with it?

Many years ago I spent some time, within a tented existence, and with the Bedouin. From their perspective, I'm now ashamed to be British.

For those who may wish to consider the Arab, read the works of William Baggot Glubb. I'm not sure of my spelling, but he used the pseudonym Glubb Pasha. He was a British envoy, sent out, from memory, between the two great wars, with the directive to report back. He wrote, I think, two books, "War in the desert" and "Living with Arabs". Read his works, and then tell me that "our" interference in the Middle East, had any legal or moral argument.

That Blair ignored those, who would have been far better advised than I, who counselled against his pointless agenda, both in the Middle east, and also our current debate, fills me with anger.

Right, rant over! I'm now going to discuss things with Judgemental, things that we may, between us all, be able to influence!!

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

J-M,

If the hunting fraternity are to take this on, then perhaps a few points should be considered. Before I become involved in a fight, then I consider my opponent, and that's his strengths as well as his weaknesses.

The weaknesses can be very well summed up, in their dubious links to the Labour party. Though in the event that the Coalition falls apart, then perhaps sooner rather than later, would be a good idea.

Their strengths? A numerically small group of people have swayed the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. They have also been persuaded of this fact because hunting is so often represented by those who, and I can do no better than quote the perceptive and witty quote from another post, insist on correcting others with lines, such as "They're not DAWGS, they're HINDS"!! That's funny and damaging, in equal measure.

I really hate to tell you this, but from the perspective of the voting public, the articulated, well presented and educated approach, does nothing but reinforce the argument given by the "antis". The argument being that those who hunt, course, or take part in any field sports which involve "dawgs", and in what ever form, are elitist, wealthy, out of touch with the real world. We all know this not to be so.

I would suggest to you that the weaknesses of those who hunt, become the relied upon strengths of those who don't. Relying upon the LACS running out of money, wont be enough, and neither will the repeal of an Act, which was so flawed as to be wrong. We really must get our house in order, if we are to see any level of reinstatement. It would be my intention that my thoughts would be viewed as constructive criticism!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

J-M,
A numerically small group of people have swayed the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers.

Alec.

Alec you are missing a phrase and a sentence, as follows:

"A numerically small group of people have swayed a small proportion of the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."

Please give perfectly intelligent people who simply believe that hunting is wrong some credit for having minds of their own!

And anyone who is fooled by Blair is pretty dumb! All his political career Blair has said what he needs to say to get what he wants. If you read reports of the Northern Ireland peace process, both sides would walk out of meetings saying that he agreed with them. He didn't, he just said what they wanted to hear. In that case it produced a great result, but that just goes to show how clever he is. At the time of the hunt ban, he wanted votes and got them. Now, he wants to party with the rich and famous and powerful and the rich and famous and powerful are largely into blood sports. Changed his mind? How would we know? Knowbody knows what is really in that man's mind!

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec you are missing a phrase and a sentence, as follows:

"A numerically small group of people have swayed /?/a small proportion of/?/ the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."

Please give perfectly intelligent people who simply believe that hunting is wrong some credit for having minds of their own!

cptrayes,

I fail to see how I've missed either phrase, or sentence. Quote me, by all means, but perhaps you'd be kind enough to add your thoughts, but afterwards. You have quite blatantly miss quoted me, and you've also added your own thoughts to mine, but still within your

!! Manipulating my argument, towards your own ends, isn't on.

Perhaps you could explain your additions, which seem to be at odds, with each other. You have added "a small proportion", and then included, within your "Quote", "A very substantial proportion of the British Public". Which is it to be? I suspect the larger of the two, is what you'd prefer. The very substantial proportion of the British public, have been mislead. I'm sorry, but it's that simple.

Whilst I'm not altogether sure what "perfect intelligence" is, I will readily accept that you have given a degree of thought to this debate.

You and I will agree on two points, possibly. Blair was the worst peace time leader, which we've had, in living memory, and though this may surprise you, not only do I not hunt, but I'd find some common ground with Wilde. That really isn't the point. What is the point, is that hunting is an important part of a rural environment. Fail to grasp that, and there will be little progress.

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

I love it when pro hunting people call "making you accept my point of view" "progress". I wish I had a pound for every post on the rights and wrongs of hunting on this forum contained a similar insistence that the only right argument is pro hunting. There are two sides and the people on each side and in the middle have a perfect right to hold the views that they do.

I don't share your point of view about hunting Alex. I am fully up to date with the arguments on both sides as users of this forum will know from previous discussions. I am a country dweller and land owner and I drag hunt and in the past I have both fox hunted and cub hunted, now laughably rebranded as "early season hunting" to avoid upsetting people by calling it by its correct and accurate name.

I do not accept that hunting fox or deer with hounds is essential to the rural envoronment. The very rural environment in which I live manages extremely well without it. I accept that it is important to many people and I feel sorry for them that they have been deprived of something that they love doing.

There is no conflict at all in what I wrote earlier though I apologise for missing out the words "I think". I should have posted "I think that you have missed a phrase and a sentence" rather than made a statement. Sorry.
But it is true that:

A numerically small group of people have swayed a small proportion of the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers.

In addition to that small proportion:

A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."

These two statements are both correct and not in conflict. Your quibble over the use of the words "perfectly intelligent" is pure pedantry and do no justice to your own intelligence or this debate.

 

[EAST KENT]

A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."



Oh really? Well tell that to my working lakies who could easily cure the London boroughs of their Basil Brushes at a swoop,and be in Heaven doing it.I am beyond caring what the great British Public think anymore,any means to get us HUNTERS back doing our stuff is fine by me. And if you think I could rouse myself enough to chase a bloomin` duster..not b.......y likely! There are probably a lot of riders on this forum who have never even been on a real hunt,watching hound work,admiring the skill of the wily fox..I feel great pity for you,you can have absolutely NO conception what we have lost . If that Weazel ever crossed in front of me..well,see you in clink,but it`d be well worth it.

 

[Judgemental]

The message I am getting from .liar is that his other half is giving him grief at home, because it looks very unlikely that he will ever be given a peerage or title.

Therefore he is going to say and do anything that will appease those he treated so badly.

"Always be nice to people on the way up you never know who you might meet on the way down".

Alec you have some interesting points. My view is that we are now beyond the point of no return, where it is clear civil damage was done to a section of society and business.

Civil damage in that the government of the day and .liar in effect issued a defamation against hunting people and damaged their business interests, their social status and encouraged abuse against hunting people.

Frankly in exactly the same ways as Hitler did with the Jews. .liars government was exactly the same as that of Nazi Germany. Banning hunting, invading a soverign state and degenerating a section of the population.

Collective civil action could be an option, why not?

 

[Crazy Friesian]

the Americans thrive on this British drivel-

And pay him a FORTUNE as a consultant...

 

[Paddydou]

And pay him a FORTUNE as a consultant...

The only difference between stupidity and genius is that stupidity has no bounds...

 

[JenHunt]

clean? Clean?! CLEAN??!!

the little bleeeep doesn't know the meaning of the word.

as someone already pointed out... the man has more in common with one A. Hitler than the previous Labour Prime Minister!

also - there's lies, damnded lies, and Politics!

 

[Judgemental]

Serious question, search your souls, sensible answers with hand on heart.

When the ban came into force and since, how many of you have felt you have been:

a) Humiliated
b) Degraded
c) Feel a greater or lesser degree of anxiety that there might be an 'accident' - you all know what that means.
d) As a direct result of the ban have you lost money, lost a job and have you or those you know suffered a loss in terms horses or hounds, particularly the latter because they are now unable to do that for which they are bred.

 

[Kat]

Apparently there is a campaign asking customers in book shops to move Blair's book from the "autobiography" section to the "true crime" section. It has been fairly successful so far but some shoppers have been even more imaginative with copies being found in the "dark fantasy" section!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

this rubbish is already down to half price.

 

[EAST KENT]

AHA!! He did`nt care for the eggs .and has now cancelled a book signing,in London I think, shame ,I might have gone along..what with the cubbing season upon us and all. Says he does`nt want to take up too many "resources"..i.e his protection squad.

Ah well ,patience is a virtue folks!

 

[EAST KENT]

Serious question, search your souls, sensible answers with hand on heart.

When the ban came into force and since, how many of you have felt you have been:

a) Humiliated
b) Degraded
c) Feel a greater or lesser degree of anxiety that there might be an 'accident' - you all know what that means.
d) As a direct result of the ban have you lost money, lost a job and have you or those you know suffered a loss in terms horses or hounds, particularly the latter because they are now unable to do that for which they are bred.

Non of those..more like bloody angry actually.