Dr. Brian May's SAVE ME CAMPAIGN

Luci07 said:
Its not bold, its extremely insulting. While discussions can get out of hand on this forum, with regards to the subject of hunting, there is normally a fairly well balanced argument for and against - without insulting either side. Do not presume to speak on my behalf or attempt to bully me with your poorly researched arguments.

Oh BTW - born, brought up and still living in ..... the countryside..
Click to expand...

"Insulted", and "bullied"?? lol Born, brought up, still living in the countryside and snivveling all over it by the sound of it. Pull yourself together its only a forum!!!
 
Scratchline said:
Sorry rosiefronfelen but if he said what? He said brutalised ie turned into brutes and I added what I thought he may mean. Tbh to suggest him writing such a thing is wicked is something you can and perhaps should put to him via his campaign which he is fully involved in with us supporters. Having seen his response to the pro hunting leader of LC council and based on the fact that he see's hunters as the lowest of the low then you should take a stiff drink before reading Dr. Bri's reply lol
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what you think Rosiefronfelen is being 'wicked' about. Suggesting that May thinks young hounds are 'brutalised' in to becoming hunters (as is your interpretation of his statement), or explaining to you rather well the instinct of the young hound.

You clearly feel strongly about this subject - which is huge credit to you. But you (and people like Dr May) do need to get their facts straight in order to argue their point successfully.
 
amymay said:
I don't quite understand what you think Rosiefronfelen is being 'wicked' about. Suggesting that May thinks young hounds are 'brutalised' in to becoming hunters (as is your interpretation of his statement), or explaining to you rather well the instinct of the young hound.

You clearly feel strongly about this subject - which is huge credit to you. But you (and people like Dr May) do need to get their facts straight in order to argue their point successfully.
Click to expand...

No, no. I didnt suggest rosie was being wicked please read back.
 
Scratchline, please keep civil over these threads, we all have differing opinions on this very controversial subject,( it does make me mad but i'm trying to keep my cool!)so please, no more comments on shacking up with our hounds etc. not very helpful or constructive. i have read Mays retorts, very unimpressive i must say, and the councillor concerned spoke well and to the point, Mays answer was very lowering and i imagine the councillor would have been pretty horrified at receiving such a crass reply. i will be writing to May, no worries on that, believe you me.
 
Scratchline said:
"Insulted", and "bullied"?? lol Born, brought up, still living in the countryside and snivveling all over it by the sound of it. Pull yourself together its only a forum!!!
Click to expand...

You are not funny. You are the revolting breed that believes you can be rude, ill informed and that everyone else has to put up with you. You say its funny and we can say nothing?
You make idiotic comments and then can get huffy and offensive when corrected or questioned. Everyone has the right to their own opinion but thinking yours carries more weight if you shout more loudly/are nastier is ridicolous.
 
luci07 said:
you are not funny. You are the revolting breed that believes you can be rude, ill informed and that everyone else has to put up with you. You say its funny and we can say nothing?
You make idiotic comments and then can get huffy and offensive when corrected or questioned. Everyone has the right to their own opinion but thinking yours carries more weight if you shout more loudly/are nastier is ridicolous.
Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!
 
All very well and good but what about constructive suggestions.
With regard to the fox control debate, this is a problem caused by humans. We have created the imbalance within nature that drives foxes into the cities because we have decreased their natural habitats. This causes a problem by cats being killed by foxes, bins being ripped apart, “domesticated” dogs being attacked etc, etc.
In the country foxes gravitate to “easy prey” (newborn lambs, chickens etc) It is in their nature. What they would then do (in the case of the chickens) is remove the carcasses and store what they could for future. But what we see is the total decimation of a coop.
Ask yourself this: Who is the foxes and dogs closest relation... the Wolf... Think about it, though not for too long mind as it really is a no brainer. They all have the natural instinct to hunt given the right stimulus.
With regard to Badgers: They too are a threat to farmers and their “job”. Ask yourself how you would feel if someone threatened your job and livelihood. They have mouths to feed too. Farming is not a job for the feint hearted. Many of us wouldn’t even know where to start. What is the knock on effect of this? (less affordable food for the British public)But yet many are the first to complain when meat prices go up. Only uninfected Badgers can be vaccinated, what would you have done with the rest?
How do you CONSTRUCTIVELY suggest we address these problems? Bearing in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg. As with many of these debates it is worth bearing in mind the “butterfly effect”...
Just for reference (for the avoidance of name calling etc!) , I am not a bunny hugger / pro / anti hunting or whatever else you may like to level at me. This is just (IMHO) food for thought.
 
I normally love a good hunting debate, have been in several for days.

It is therefore surprising that HHO is one of the worst places for an -informed- debate.

I wish i had posted the link to this first, because Scratchline, you are making things worse. Stop being so downright rude and nasty. Even if people are to you. Be better than that and use information in a polite and concise way rathert than muddling it with insults.

And Mr May was indeed similarly rude to the politician... which is a shame, because antis get a bad enough press as it is.
 
somethingorother said:
I normally love a good hunting debate, have been in several for days.

It is therefore surprising that HHO is one of the worst places for an -informed- debate.

I wish i had posted the link to this first, because Scratchline, you are making things worse. Stop being so downright rude and nasty. Even if people are to you. Be better than that and use information in a polite and concise way rathert than muddling it with insults.

And Mr May was indeed similarly rude to the politician... which is a shame, because antis get a bad enough press as it is.
Click to expand...

I feel like a little child getting told off lol lol Lets get some things straight should we. If somebody is rude or nasty to me I will return the favour. And how anything can be made worse than a group of riders wanting to go around our countryside ripping foxes apart I will never know.
As for Dr. May he wrote a wondferful reply IMO to a poncy idiot who dared to rip into him. With nearly 14,000 supporters joining his cause in days why dont you pop over to the SAVE ME site and give him a piece of your mind but trust me, I am being polite to you.
Now if you wish to debate hunting in a fluffy way why dont you start a thread and leave me be ta very much!
 
See, there you go again being rude. You just can't help yourself, it's like you have no control over your fingers.

I have joined the save me site, before i saw this. And i support Mr May. But i think that that particular reply was more suited to a 'rockstar' on stage than an ambassador for a cause such as this. I just hate to see the cause being marred by aggressive people such as yourself. I do not wish to debate hunting in a fluffy way, i wish to discuss it in a polite way minus the personal insults.

Did you get my PM? It would really be good for that group if you followed the link i sent you. In case you didn't get it from my pm, or didnt check out the group, i am a strong anti and it is a very anti group. They would be very happy to hear your opinions and arguments to use themselves. Unless you only like the argument of things on here? There will unlikely be anyone to argue with you there.
 
Hi, only checked my messages this morningbut have replied. In answer to your question no I have no control over my fingers sometimes, they are very naughty.

As I am here, I am a committed anti and am sick of the hunters LAME EXCUSES. Brian May replied to these daft excuses and with his kind permission I repost it here for you to read. I shall not disucc iot further save it leading to arguements with those who are lovers of fox hunting.

The Lame Claims File
The fox-lovers’ handbook of answers to lame claims – as to why it’s acceptable to torture foxes to death.
Lame Claim Answer
1. “It’s a BAD law... Baa-aad! Unenforceable... confusing... we don’t understand it.” Read it more carefully! Improve it, tighten it up, monitor violations more rigorously, enforce it more diligently. If the law against child molestation was found to be unenforceable, what would we do? Repeal the law? I don’t think so.
2. “It took up too much parliamentary time.” No it didn’t. This law was introduced by proper parliamentary process – in accordance with the will of the majority of the British public, who consider hunting with dogs barbaric and unacceptable, and see this law as a flagship move towards better treatment of ALL animals –wild animals, farm animals, and laboratory animals. The fact that Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance boasts that the Tories could smash this law “in a day” is proof that these people care nothing for the will of the people. God help us all if they seize power.
3. “Foxes are vermin; if we didn’t hunt them, we’d be overrun with them.” So... how come the Hunts construct artificial earths to encourage the breeding of foxes, and, when foxes become scarce in a particular area, the hunts re-introduce them? Hunt supporters have elsewhere actually claimed that if there were no foxhunting, foxes would have been extinct by now. Surely there must be more humane ways to save an endangered species?

By the way... DEFRA defines which animals are classed as vermin in the UK. The fox is not among them. Foxes are NOT vermin. This is in fact a very old argument – only now heard from hunting advocates who have not kept up. It’s so obviously a lie, that it has been replaced in the mouths of most Countryside Alliance members with this next (pretty much opposite) argument.
4. “We don’t persecute foxes - we love them... we conserve them... we preserve a balance - we even ‘enoble’ them by hunting them - and we strengthen the breed by picking off the weakest.” Well, make up your minds - just now, they were ‘vermin’ - pests - to be controlled. Now suddenly they are precious - and I bet they enjoy being ‘enobled’ by being pursued and dismembered alive by dogs. Yes, folks, if there were no foxes, the foxhunters would have no fun. So they make sure there are enough to hunt – and the numbers go down in a particular area, they import them. (Oh, and by the way, if being hunted is good for the species... perhaps we’d better instigate the hunting of humans... it’ll improve the strength of our species too... goody!) If we really want to get technical, my ecology advisor adds, “This whole ‘savannah’ theory of maintaining balance by removing predators only applies when those species have coevolved together and are infact in a delicate balance. We did not co-evolve predating foxes in this manner, so this argument is ecologically unsound.”
5. “It’s traditional - traditions are good - they are our birth-right.” Oh, really? So the traditions of wife beating, bear baiting, slave whipping, burning of supposed witches, birching of schoolchildren (and so many more atrocities)... were all traditions that ought to have been preserved... right?! Just because something has been done for years does not make it right. If traditions were always upheld, women would still not have a vote. Traditions my ass.
6. “Foxes are vicious and cruel - haven’t you seen what they do to a chicken coop if they get in? They kill all the birds for pleasure.” Not true - it’s another bit of outdated propaganda. If a hungry animal suddenly finds food, it will eat it... just like we do... but the foxes kill extra chickens with the purpose of burying them for future use, when the pickings are slim. Left to themselves they will come back and bury those chickens... but they are not completely stupid; if there is a farmer with a gun waiting to shoot him, Mr. Fox is not going to come back and collect the food supplies. Killing for pleasure? Make no mistake... there is only one animal that does this... MAN.
7. “Foxes are dirty.” Nope - they’re not... our rescued foxes spend at least as much time grooming themselves as the average domestic cat; in fact they are very cat-like in many ways... this is something I never realised until I spent time with these delightful animals. They don’t cover up their poo, but neither do any of our domestic dogs. It’s not the end of the world, and certainly not a good enough reason to persecute them.
 
8. “It’s NATURAL for men to hunt foxes, just like Lions hunt antelope.” Well, the flaw in this argument is blindingly obvious. Lions kill for food... but humans do not eat foxes. There is only one reason to hunt down and murder a fox... for fun... for ‘sport’. It’s not in any way justifiable. It’s barbaric, and it’s cruel - it’s also clearly a crime, as defined by the 1909 Cruelty to Animals act. By the way, have we not noticed that it is NOT the hunters who manage to pull off this great ‘sporting achievement’ - it’s the hounds?
9. “Ah well, yes - it's natural for DOGS to kill foxes.” Rubbish. It is in no way natural. We’ve already published pictures of our local dogs playing with the rescued foxes... along with deer and various birds. The fox is a naturally, delightfully gentle creature – timid, and built for running. The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. The Hunts test the hound puppies on fox cubs. It’s the charming practice of ‘cubbing’, wherein, once the parent fox has been slaughtered, the tiny fox-cubs are poked out or dug out from their homes, and forced into the path of the young hounds - already ‘toughened up’ and ready to mutilate. The young hounds eat the fox pups alive. If the young dogs are not vicious enough, the Huntsmen shoot them - another nice piece of ‘natural selection’ designed to make the pack not only healthy but also as vicious as possible. Even leaving aside this abhorrent cruelty to foxes, in a decent society it ought to be illegal to raise a dog for the sole purpose of killing. (In fact, as noted in LC 11, currently it IS illegal to breed dogs for dog-fighting... we logically we need to bring things into line... so that what is law for the yobs is law for the toffs too.

It’s interesting that perhaps the foxhunting community of people have been in a sense brutalised, too – brought up in a way that has desensitised them to the cruelty around them.
10. “By hunting we eliminate the weakest animals, so we strengthen the species. The foxes are either killed, or get away if they are strong. Just like in Africa.” Good try. But this is just another sly (yes, it’s the humans who are sly – not the dear old foxes) attempt to bend the truth. In fact, the appallingly cruel methods used in the Hunt ensure that the chances survival of a fox in no way depend on its natural strength. Foxes are routinely imported, kept in bags so they are weakened and disoriented when they are let out in front of a pack of brutalised hounds. And the truth is that the occasional fox who actually does manage to elude the dogs is usually ‘accounted for’, by digging out and being shot anyway. No-one should be allowed to treat animals this way.
11. “It’s all about class! The middle and working classes are jealous of the toffs, and want to deprive them of their rights - among them, the right to treat any animal on their land any way they see fit.” Nonsense. It is nothing to do with class. Decent people are equally outraged if a young thug in Yorkshire goes out with his pit-bull terrier and encourages it to savage wild animals, or if a rich land-owner in Berkshire goes out with HIS brutalised dogs and commits an atrocity on a fox, or rabbit, or otter. None of us care a jot about class. We care about animals. Brutal behaviour is brutal behaviour. There is no excuse.
12. “You people who live in towns don’t understand the ways of the countryside. Leave us alone and mind your own business!” This is a good one... so glib... so ALMOST convincing. The Countryside Alliance is very keen to tell the ‘townie’ politicians how to run the whole of Britain - and has managed to make farming the most heavily subsidised industry in the land. Yet these same people deny the towns people the right to protect animals in the countryside... as if ‘country people’ OWNED our wildlife. Imagine land-owners insisting that, if child-abuse happened on their land, nobody in town had the right to try to stop it. We’d all say... ‘these children might be on your land, but they still have rights - we reserve the right to monitor your behaviour and stop the cruelty where we find it.’ Yet these Countryside Alliance stalwarts would have us accept that wild animals straying on to their land legitimately become subject to their every whim. It’s a vile conceit.
13. “You are taking away our human right to socialise in our traditional way.” Not at all. We absolutely defend your right to meet up on a crisp country morning, dressed up in pinks, and scamper about on your horses. What we dispute is your right to trample everything in your path, endangering people’s property, children, pets and livestock. And we dispute your right to kill animals for your pleasure, in a hideously cruel manner.

Drag hunting, with the hounds following a scent other than fox, gives you all the socialising you need, and all the exercise; and it has the huge advantage that the path of the hunt can be pre-planned, so that your neighbours are not threatened by invasion. If you refuse to accept this as a decent alternative, it can only be that you need the thrill of killing, and that you actually crave the feeling of wanton disregard for anyone around you... that feeling of superiority, perhaps – “Lords of the Manor” and all that? It’s time to come into the 21st century.
14. “If we are prevented from killing foxes using dogs, farmers have to control these pests by shooting them. Farmers are poor marksmen, so many foxes die a lingering death from gunshot wounds - which is inhumane.” Inhumane? Excuse me?!!! Given the choice of being pursued until your muscles are paralysed and then ripped apart by hounds; or shot with a bullet, with the chance of an instant death, which would you choose? I asked this question to the man who would be the new head of DEFRA (the Department of the Environment and Farming and Rural Affairs) if the Tories were elected in May. He at least had the decency to say he wasn’t entirely sure. But many of the Countryside Alliance propagandists continue to insist that being killed by hounds is a desirable option. Sorry, but... simply not believable. We always come back to the same conclusion... the only reason to be indulging in this filthy blood sport is that you enjoy causing unnecessary pain to animals.
Own up, guys. You are cornered – and about to be run to Earth!
 
Scratchline said:
I dont need to and my statement stands. You do a poll asking who supports hunting on this forum and prove me wrong if you dare?!
Click to expand...

I have seen no proof to support your statement and I have not taken it upon myself to speak for the "vast majority" of forum members. Prove yor claim, don't expect me to do your dirty work for you!

P.S., I don't know how to set up a poll anyway.
 
Katikins said:
@Scatchline

There are 2 polls going now... I think the numbers are starting to speak volumes. So turns out you're not actually speaking for the 'vast majority' are you!
Click to expand...
Just a quick point- the vast majority of members probably haven't even seen these polls as they're not exactly in the busiest sections of the forum so I don't think you can prove anything either way from them.
 
Katikins said:
@Scatchline

There are 2 polls going now... I think the numbers are starting to speak volumes. So turns out you're not actually speaking for the 'vast majority' are you!
Click to expand...

As nobody knows what they are actually voting for as you havent in anyway made it clear I think you are at the moment wasting your time. How about your forty voters so far only support now legal hunting following the ban therefore are anti hunting with packs of hounds?

Also, I never claimed to speak for the majority on this forum ( !!!!!),so have the good grace to be honest in your furure posts. I merely said that I believe the majority of members are anti hunt.
 
zefragile said:
Just a quick point- the vast majority of members probably haven't even seen these polls as they're not exactly in the busiest sections of the forum so I don't think you can prove anything either way from them.
Click to expand...

When they do I am not sure they will know what they are voting for. Bear hunting perhaps lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top