FOX HUNTING OPINIONS PLEASE- Pro and Anti

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Furthermore how could he have known precisely what it would ban when parliamnt were actively still debating it and redrafting the Act.

Is Hercules clairvoyant?

Hercules do you have the gift?

Or have you already answered my post?
 

avalcalab

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
68
The first hunting bill was presented to and rejected by the unelected second chamber in July 2003. People were still signing the declaration then. That's why the CA produced a page on their site entitled "Your questions on the Hunting Declaration answered. Tuesday, 28 October 2003".

But the timing doesn't matter anyway. If you look at the actual declaration you signed, you pledged:

"Consequently, we the undersigned declare our intention to disobey, peacefully, ANY LAW PURPORTING TO BAN HUNTING; any such law would be manifestly unjust." [my caps]

You didn't pledge openly to defy the law, UNLESS WE COULD FIND ONE OR TWO LOOPHOLES. You promised, quite explicitly, to disobey any law purporting to ban hunting. You broke this promise.

The other sad point is that hunts are defying the ban even without using loopholes. Cubbing is still going on, so is olde-worlde hunting with hounds. You've not just broken your pledge in the hunting declaration, you've reduced yourselves to acting like common criminals: you've prepared for yourselves an unsavoury diet of dishonesty and cowardice.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
"You didn't pledge openly to defy the law, UNLESS WE COULD FIND ONE OR TWO LOOPHOLES. You promised, quite explicitly, to disobey any law purporting to ban hunting. You broke this promise."


mmm intersting it seems I might be one of the few people publicly abiding by the letter of the Hunting Declaration. As do publicly and peacefully disobey the Hunting Act.

Even though I didn't actually sign it.

:smirk:
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
If I go out and deliberately break the law then what am I but a common criminal?

What on earth is wrong with being a common criminal. What other types of criminals are there?

It seems most unfair to expect me to be anything else.

I am after all a member of the common people.

As a common person I asert my right to be a common criminal.
 

Hercules

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2006
Messages
342
Avalcab,

Why do you insist on complaining? LACS and its supporters got the ban that they had spent 80 years campaigning for.

In one breath you criticise the hunting community for not abiding by their declaration to continue hunting. In the next, you criticise them for hunting and therefore acting like 'common criminals'. What is it to be?

''dishonesty and cowardice''

Something to which you and the little people are well acquainted
 

avalcalab

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
68
You may be committing the crime of being a bore but I doubt whether you're infringing the Hunting Act with your childish attention-seeking stunts in the undergrowth, so relax.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
I get the horrible feeling we're going to get to the same conclusion that we did with RS and Karl, that actually chasing, flushing, scent trailing, stalking wild mammals with packs of dogs IS actually still legal.
 

Hercules

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2006
Messages
342
Avalcab is all confused. Its little mind is clogged up with fantasy. It can't remember what it has said, its arguments are collapsing and it is in danger of embarrassing itself.

A pitiful sight, but not unexpected.
 

flying_change

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 December 2001
Messages
2,047
You're at it again ! I dont believe I agreed that. Consider your wrist slapped.

However, to be formal for a moment. I hereby place you on notice that if you continue to misrepresent or misquote my statements or beliefs I may consider a legal remedy.

RS
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Just trying to draw you in. Actually what you said was that you didn't know if chasing wild mammals with packs of dogs is legal or not.

Isn't your view that the law shouldn't be intelligible until a judge decides what it is?

Completely unclear laws are a foundation of our illiberal democracy.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
One can imagine the headlines.

"An internet forum user flying change aKA RS is suing a character from a Tolkein children's story in the high court today.'

Solicitor for RS.

'I haven't got a clue what is going on, but I'm hoping the Judge will.'

I will marshal my legal team.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
No, it's a piss take.

You're not actually upset are you?

I gthink I may have got your positions wrong actually I think they are something like this.

You don't know if deliberately using dogs to chase wild mammals is illegal.

You think that flushing out and stalking is illegal but only if you then chase.

Karl thinks that flushing out and stalking are completely legal and chasing is illegal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is my best understanding.

:grin:
 

Hercules

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2006
Messages
342
''I hereby place you on notice that if you continue to misrepresent or misquote my statements or beliefs I may consider a legal remedy.''

Really? There s more chance of A-A getting prosecuted for his illegal acts, if they are illegal. Who knows? The police don't, the CPS dont, no-one does.
 

flying_change

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 December 2001
Messages
2,047
You have been deliberatly misrepresenting my statements and beliefs. Apart from anything else, this contravenes the forum T+Cs. There will be no more warnings.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Rubbish you admit that you don't know what the Hunting Act bans and doesn't ban yet you support it. You think it is up to the courts to define what it bans and doesn't ban rather than parliament.

You are unable to say whether it is legal or illegal to search for chase, stalk or flush out wild mammals with dogs.
 
Joined
4 September 2006
Messages
14
Lets just remind everyone of a bit of arithmetic that the antis seem to forget. Even if all the hereditry peers and all the tory peers had not voted at all on the hunting bill, there was still enough opposition from crossbenchers, Liberal and Labour peers for it to have been comfortably defeated in the lords.

I didn't know what it would ban - or more to the point allow. And i didn't sign the declaration either.
 

Hercules

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2006
Messages
342
You have been deliberatly misrepresenting my statements and beliefs. Apart from anything else, this contravenes the forum T+Cs. There will be no more warnings.

Tough Guy!!!

Stop crying and state your opinions more clearly. That way your views will not be misinterpreted. Any more threats or weasel words?
 

NK12

New User
Joined
10 March 2021
Messages
1
I would enjoy letting hounds rip foxes apart if they didn't feel anything, but we aren't in the middle ages to cause unnecessary suffer, now we can kill humanely, that's why I prefer "normal" hunting instead.
Also Fox Hunting is a waste of land.
Another thing that really bothers me is cubbing, I know they face many dangers in the wild and they will probably die, but that doesn't mean we have to force them to die, what if they survived if we didn't kill them???
In conclusion, it's unnecessary and the land they occupate to fox hunt can be used for better purposes, and even though foxes die in cruel ways in the wild, it doesn't mean we have to do the same when we can kill them wthically.
 
Top