Hunt Ban & Free Vote

[Herne]

How long do we have to wait?

Until we have a parliamentary majority in favour of action, obviously...

However, that does not mean that we should be idle. We should be being politically active, making sure that our voice is heard, and doing what is necessary to achieve that greater political representation that we need.

Not just complaining that "someone else" isn't achieving anything.

 

[devonlass]

Rog,

The hunting issue is certainly an emotive one.

I didn't want to quote your whole post and take up the whole page,but can i just say what an informative and polite response yours was.

I am very anti hunt (and even more anti tory) and that won't change TBH (I have no issue with land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance,but terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it is just something I cannot relate to or consider acceptable),but I did actually read your post and consider some of your points,not something that normally happens when I read pro hunting posts have to say!!

No other point to make BTW in regard to the thread and sorry for going slightly O/T but did want to comment and applaud C_C's attitude.

Usually such questions would be shot down and jumped upon,made a refreshing change to read a carefully considered and reasonable reply

 

[Herne]

I am very anti hunt (and even more anti tory) and that won't change TBH (I have no issue with land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance,but terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it is just something I cannot relate to or consider acceptable),but I did actually read your post and consider some of your points,not something that normally happens when I read pro hunting posts have to say!!

(Ok. I am going to start with a seemingly arrogant statement, but bear with me, I go on to explain...)

The difference between you as an anti-hunter and me as a pro-hunter is that I have one particular advantage over you - in that I know something, for a definite fact, that you do not know. And that one fact indicates very strongly that my analysis of the whole hunting argument is more accurate and more realistic than yours.

That one fact is this: I KNOW that I am not a sadist.

All the things that you know about hunting, I also know. In all likelihood, as a lifelong hunter at top level, I know infinitely more about it than you will ever know. And yet, knowing everything that you know, I choose to support hunting. Why?

Basically, this can only be for one of two reasons: EITHER, I am a sadist OR I also know other things that YOU do NOT know that lead me to an alternative conclusion - possibly the same conclusion that you would also reach if you knew what I do.

Of course, I also know that if I were a sadist, I would still deny it. So, how do I demonstrate it to you?

I can't, so I will ask you to demonstrate something to yourself.

Clear your mind - and then imagine that you yourself were a sadist.

Imagine that you wanted to go out and get kicks by inflicting suffering on animals.

You have two choices:

Choice 1. You can get on a horse, and try to follow a load of dogs that someone else is setting to chase a fox. The dogs and the fox are faster than your horse and they can go cross country whilst your horse has to go around the edges of fields and around obstacles you can't jump. Most of the time, the fox will be out of sight, a lot of the time, the hounds will be out of earshot. When the dogs catch the fox, because there are thirty or fourty of them, they will rip the fox to shreds in seconds. You will pay a lot of money for this activity - regardless of how effective it is in giving you your kicks.

Choice 2. You can go out on your own into the countryside with a gun. You get to pick what you shoot at and you get to choose where you shoot it. Yes, you could shoot it through the brainpan and kill it stone dead, but you could also shoot it through the guts and watch it squirm – and it is YOU that is causing the suffering yourself, personally, not some pack of dogs controlled by someone else.

Remember, you are choosing which activity to give your hypothetical sadistic self the biggest kicks. Go on, now, be honest. Which one would you pick?

And therein lies the flaw in the case against hunting. The case against hunting only works if hunters are sadists, and yet hunting would actually be such a ridiculously ineffective method of enjoying sadistic kicks compared with all the rest that if hunters were sadists, they wouldn’t hunt.

Because, if we are not sadists, then we are not "terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it"; we are merely "land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance" by a different method.

 

[devonlass]

Because, if we are not sadists, then we are not "terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it"; we are merely "land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance" by a different method.

I would like to be clear that I generally don't get involved in hunting threads solely because my views are so anti and I can get very passionate up here on my soapbox

I just wanted to comment on C_C post as it made such a change to read a balanced response to a hunt challenging question,and thought it deserved a mention.

However as you have asked (and pretty politely also I may add,thanx for that),I will respond.

I never suggested you were sadists,that's too strong a word and incorrect in it's meaning.
However I do believe it takes a certain sort of person to enjoy participation in blood sports,and that the majority of people would take no interest or pleasure from it.Make of that what you will,it's not meant to be offensive,just an observation on human nature and social awareness.
Hunting does involve terrifying/terrorising and killing small creatures I'm afraid whichever way you dress it up or try to justify it,that is the bottom line.

I cannot imagine myself in the scenarios you proposed,I honestly can't.That requires a desire to inflict my will and advantages on others weaker than myself,it's a 'quality' I simply don't possess,even for imaginary purposes.

No that it matters as the argument remains the same,small minority traditionalists vs modern Joe public.

Rog was correct when he said that most of the general public do not support hunting.This won't change IMO no matter how much you inform people.You like to believe that it is simply a case of ignorance and that if the rest of us 'understood' we would support your way of thinking,not so.

Many people understand the need to get rid of pests if absolutely necessary,but to most of us this involves a swift and painless method of delivery as possible.It's not something we wish to drag out or a social event that we enjoy,and certainly not an entire lifestyle and community that we wish to support and encourage.

It's elitist,outdated and socially unacceptable.

Apologies again for taking thread O/T.I will shut up now,and hope very much that you have taken my comments as they were intended and not in an antagonistic way.

 

[Hunters]

Wake up all those pro hunting people, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The MFHA have missed a trick. The MFHA should have had hunt masters & educated others to visit 'woo' & educate MP's.

Perhaps and only perhaps there then might have been enough MPs to turn the vote around, but instead the opportunity to have the vote has been lost & as I previously have been saying for the last 4 years, if Labour get back into power they will almost certainly tighten the law & you could begIn to see a decline in people wanting to be hunt staff & this would lead to a decline in hunts.

All pro hunters should be asking their masters what the Mfha are doing about addressing this.

You have been warned.

 

[combat_claire]

And Hunters for the third time many hunt masters have been acting as Vote Okay ambassadors to put our case to MPs and ensure they can attend hunt events.

 

[Hunters]

Well that's ok then - it's clearly all in hand...... Not

 

[JanetGeorge]

With absurd entreaties that we must be more reasonable and wait for the right moment.

In case the High Command cannot count, (or measure the thickness of two short planks with a six foot gap in the middle) the ban came into place in 2004 that was eight (8) years ago!

How long do we have to wait?

Yes - the ban came in in 2004 - that was SEVEN years after a Labour Government was elected that was COMMITTED to a hunting ban! That's how long it can take to get something done even when the odds are in your favour!

The Conservative part of the co-alition Government doesn't have odds in its favour and any attempt to repeal the Hunting ban now WOULD be defeated! Fact!

A majority of Conservative MPs, a few Lib-Dems and even one or two Labour MPs ARE committed to repeal - but it doesn't add up to the numbers needed to GET repeal. And - guess what - I have NO part in 'High Command' - but I DO know how the system works!

TBH, it is almost impossible to 'woo' a vociferously anti-hunt Labour MP. They are almost all in constituencies where they would lose their seat if they changed sides, but even if they were smack in the middle of a 'strong' hunting area and were lobbied every day of the week, they STILL wouldn't change!

As for the idea that traditional hunting could resume in small areas due to a successful local referendum, it's ludicrous. The first few hunts to 'benefit' from a successful local referendum would be hit SO hard by saboteurs they'd have to shut up shop!

 

[Hunters]

Janetgeorge, you are quite right in the length of term it took to get the ban on hunting & of course Labour used the Parliament Act to enforce the ban.

The point that I'm still (obviously badly) trying to make, is that I don't see a great deal of direction let alone action with regards attempting to sway the vote.

This could be the last chance to change the ban. There are approx 2 years to the next election. No time to waste in my humble opinion, but I may as well be banging my head against a brick wall as clearly there's nothing left to do according to most of the posts on here..

 

[combat_claire]

This could be the last chance to change the ban. There are approx 2 years to the next election. No time to waste in my humble opinion, but I may as well be banging my head against a brick wall as clearly there's nothing left to do according to most of the posts on here..

This is not what other people have been saying at all. Maybe your neck of the woods is different but for the last 11 years we have had very active Vote Okay representatives/ Masters and CA Regional Directors who have worked their asses off to get results in the political arena.

In 2001 the majorities of 2 anti-hunting MPs were cut drastically
In 2004 we helped at the Leicester South by-election
In 2005 we unseated 2 anti-hunting MPs and left the third dangling by a thread
in 2009 We helped ensure that Chloe Smith was elected for Conservatives in a by-election
In 2010 we finally got rid of the anti-hunting MP in Corby and turned Bedford blue with another supportive MP
In 2012 we threw our support into the Corby by-election
We have hosted visits from Ministers at kennels
We have invited and had MPs attend hunt social events
We are active letter writers to local MPs

If you don't think enough is being done, then why don't you volunteer to help Vote Okay mobilise the troops in your county. If every hunt had been as active as the Fitzwilliam has been then the political picture might well have looked very different today.

 

[Hunters]

Already done.

Speaking as an ex master all MPs in our area are now conservative and thanks Thr efforts me & many others did

 

[Hunters]

Sorry iPhone trouble.

We worked tirelessly on the streets etc and replaced one lib Dem MP with a conservative & two labour MPs to conservative.

Our hunt area is done!

 

[Kittykins]

Wake up all those pro hunting people, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The MFHA have missed a trick. The MFHA should have had hunt masters & educated others to visit 'woo' & educate MP's.

You're right, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, LibDem or Conservative, but not because of the lack of effort from the MFHA. It's because the Cameron-led Tory party doesn't give a stuff about it's loyal suppoters.

I'm fairly politically active in our local area - I'm a Tory Councillor on the local (District) Council and did a lot for our local association in the 2010 election. The hunt were our main supporters in terms of leafletting - we wouldn't have managed to get half as much literature out had they not helped. The Tory Party, in my view, therefore owes it to the hunting fraternity to work towards overturning the ban (quite apart from the fact that freedom is a cornerstone of the Tory ethos, or should be at least!). Yet when I went to Tory Party conference that year I was horrified to find a mock wall displayed, across which had been scrawled the signatures of Tory MPs who supported upholding the ban. There were quite a few names on it.

Cameron appears to think that, in order to win the next election he needs to not only abandon his core vote, but furthermore somehow 'stick it to them' in order to attract the liberal centre ground. Firstly, that's the sort of sordid calcuation that gives politics a bad name. Secondly, it's the sort of calculation that can only work if the core vote has no-where else to go - but they do: UKIP. Cameron can hardly clain to be a master tactician anyway - he managed to lose an election against one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers we've ever had, in the midst of a recession!

So to blame it all on the poor MFHA is to slightly miss the bigger picture, which is that a Cameroon government would never have and will never overturn the ban, and all Hague's posturing about them doing everything they can is just that: posturing in the hope that the hunts will turn out for them again in 2015.

Personally, the Tories have sold out too often for me to stomach. I'll probably run for UKIP at the next election, even if it means losing my seat on the council.

 

[Herne]

I will shut up now,and hope very much that you have taken my comments as they were intended and not in an antagonistic way.
I would like to be clear that I generally don't get involved in hunting threads solely because my views are so anti and I can get very passionate up here on my soapbox

We all get passionate, it is an emotive subject. Nothing wrong with a bit of passion.

Passion shouldn’t mean that we can’t have a rational discussion about it, though – even though with so many people, on either side, it does.

Here’s another question for you: what if your side is wrong? What are the consequences then?

If I am wrong, then I am guilty of causing unnecessary and unjustifiable suffering in the process of hunting.

But what if your side is wrong? What will your side be guilty of?

Many people understand the need to get rid of pests if absolutely necessary,but to most of us this involves a swift and painless method of delivery as possible.

Hunting does involve terrifying/terrorising and killing small creatures…

So does shooting, so does snaring, so does the use of humane live traps, so does not controlling foxes at all. Every decision in wildlife management – even one to do nothing at all – involves making decisions about what lives and what dies and how. Kill the fox, the fox dies; leave the fox, the rabbit dies. Either way, your decision is a life-or-death one for something.

Changing a culling method does not remove animal suffering entirely, it only changes what suffers and how.


Fundamental question: The imposition of the Hunting Act 2004 stopped (most) hunting with dogs. In terms of the net amount of animal suffering in the countryside, what effect has that Act had? Has it gone up or or has it gone down?

Yes, the suffering caused by hunting has been removed from one side of the equation; but, the suffering generated by other methods of culling, or by predation, or involved in foxes “dieing of natural causes” equally have to be added to the other side of the equation.

So, what has the result been. Has the Act, overall, resulted in more suffering or less suffering?

If the answer is – as you must concede it could hypothetically be – that the Hunting Act 2004 has increased the net amount of animal suffering; then would you not also have to concede that it would be pretty much a failure as an “animal welfare measure” and should be scrapped? If.

You like to believe that it is simply a case of ignorance and that if the rest of us 'understood' we would support your way of thinking,not so.

Really???

Even if it was explained to you with facts and figures and diagrams that you could not dispute that the Act had increased animal suffering as a whole, you would still let your aversion to something on the grounds of it being “ elitist,outdated and socially unacceptable” sway your decision towards something that caused increased animal suffering?

How does that tie in with your claim not to be able to “to inflict my will and advantages on others weaker than myself”…?


There is more to the whole question of field sports, or blood sports if you prefer, than just the good guys defeating the bad guys.

The good guys then have to go on and demonstrate that their way is better, otherwise they are not, in fact, the good guys after all…

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You should owe it to the animals that you are concerned about to KNOW you are right, not just assume that you are – and that is a whole, different ball game.

Likewise, my comments are not designed to be antagonistic…

 

[Herne]

Wake up all those pro hunting people, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The MFHA have missed a trick. The MFHA should have had hunt masters & educated others to visit 'woo' & educate MP's.

Perhaps and only perhaps there then might have been enough MPs to turn the vote around, but instead the opportunity to have the vote has been lost & as I previously have been saying for the last 4 years, if Labour get back into power they will almost certainly tighten the law & you could begIn to see a decline in people wanting to be hunt staff & this would lead to a decline in hunts.

All pro hunters should be asking their masters what the Mfha are doing about addressing this.

You have been warned.

Ok, Hunters, you are an ex-master and/or an educated other.

You take your pick of any of the labour MPs or blue foxes and "turn" him or her.

No? Why not? If the MFHA are missing a trick, why should you miss it too? There is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking independent action. You know what needs to be done, you don't need the MFHA's permission. Lueu in, there, boy!

Pick a target, make an appointment and off you go.

I look forward to the news conference.

In the mean time, I shall carry on trying to secure the selection and election of pro-hunt MPs. I know which of us I suspect shall have more success.

Already done.

Speaking as an ex master all MPs in our area are now conservative and thanks Thr efforts me & many others did

Excellent. Thank you very much. (and I mean that genuinely).

I wish I could say that about my area. I have one labour seat to regain.

But we know the process works. You and I and many others have proved it.

We need to repeat it, moving out of our areas, out of our comfort zones if necessary, until we attain the majority we need.

 

[Shoveller]

A few points. Firstly I cannot see why any future labour government would want to spend another second looking at hunting legilslation. The much more leniant Scottish legislation has never been tightened and so far as I'm aware the whole subject has more or less left the political agenda north of the border. I also struggle to see how our legislation could be "tightened up" to make things much worse. I suppose a complete ban on terrierwork, but that's about all. Most hunts are trail hunting which is an activity not described in the act or affected by it.

As I understand it, a change by statutory instrument would still need approval by the commons. Due to the tribal nature of the place, if you made a small change that would make exempt hunting far more practical (such as removing the limit of 2 hounds for flushing a mammal to guns) most MPs would still line up and vote the same way as they would for a repeal. This change would make our law similar to that in Scotland.

The West Lothain quesion provides our only real hope. Frankly I can't really see why it's even a question, it is scandalous that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that don't concern their constituants, (most famously with the Foundation Hospitals bill) and while Labour will never do anything about it because it as is the only way they can ever be in government in England, the Tories lack of interest in the matter is odd. The only explanation can be that the Tories are rooted in the idea of unionism, and even though they have virtually no support in Scotland, they cannot bring themselves to see how much better off the Tory Party's electoral prospects would be without Scotland. Perhaps Vote OK should go and help Alex Salmond win his independance referendum?

 

[ROG]

It is what the majority of the voting public want which is what MPs will go for because its votes that keep them in their jobs

I am in a group of thousands of advanced drivers who would like laws that enforce all drivers to pass the AD test but its never going to happen because the general public will show their anger to that at the next election - same goes for graduated driving licences

If anybpdy wants the hunting of foxes to return to as it was then its the general public that need to be behind it so that MPs have no choice but to bow to that pressure if they want to keep their seats

So.... are the general public likely to get behind a return to what it was ?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Cameron appears to think that, in order to win the next election he needs to not only abandon his core vote, but furthermore somehow 'stick it to them' in order to attract the liberal centre ground. Firstly, that's the sort of sordid calcuation that gives politics a bad name. Secondly, it's the sort of calculation that can only work if the core vote has no-where else to go - but they do: UKIP. Cameron can hardly clain to be a master tactician anyway - he managed to lose an election against one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers we've ever had, in the midst of a recession!

So to blame it all on the poor MFHA is to slightly miss the bigger picture, which is that a Cameroon government would never have and will never overturn the ban, and all Hague's posturing about them doing everything they can is just that: posturing in the hope that the hunts will turn out for them again in 2015.

For a Tory Councillor, you appear to be remarkably ignorant about just how hard Tory MPs have worked to keep hunting safe - not just from 1997 - but for the 50+ years preceding that. I've lost count of the number of anti-hunting/anti-coursing bills that were defeated over the years - the only one I was seriously involved with was the Foster Bill in 1997/98, and David Cameron, William Hague, David Maclean, Edward Garnier and many others worked their butts off to kill that one! I remember making frenzied 'phone calls to David and Edward at 11.00pm to get them to carry on with a totally pointless debate about nothing until the lawyers helping us could get some additional amendments drafted to defeat Foster's attempt to put in a last minute amendment (our amendments HAD to be in before the House rose that night!)

IF Cameron can win the next election outright, then he and his senior colleagues WILL stand by their pledge; and any hunt supporter who doesn't help that outcome shouldn't be allowed out hunting IMHO!


ETA: And DO run for UKIP - you probably deserve each other!

 

[Kittykins]

IF Cameron can win the next election outright, then he and his senior colleagues WILL stand by their pledge

Would that be a cast-iron pledge? Is that like his cast iron pledge on a European referendum? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe anything that man says any more.

And I'm well aware of how hard Conservatives have worked in the past. It only makes it all the worse that there is no sign that Dave and co will do again in the future. They're not interested in what is right, they're interested in what polls highest.

 

[1t34]

As for the idea that traditional hunting could resume in small areas due to a successful local referendum, it's ludicrous. The first few hunts to 'benefit' from a successful local referendum would be hit SO hard by saboteurs they'd have to shut up shop!

I don't usually respond when I am unhappy about how something I have posted has been responded to but I think this is a bit rude. You may think its ludicrous, however when I first suggested the idea you felt it might be worth exploring.

You will never get the act repealed at a national level, whoever is in power. As such alternatives need to be explored, pressure groups explore different strategies all the time. I think I offered a different view, informed by knowledge of recent legislation and understanding of how local and national politics works. By all means disagree, but please don't use terms like ludicrous, I found it rather condescending and insulting.

I'm not a 'flouncer' but won't be returning to this part of the forum for now.

 

[Judgemental]

I don't usually respond when I am unhappy about how something I have posted has been responded to but I think this is a bit rude. By all means disagree, but please don't use terms like ludicrous, I found it rather condescending and insulting. I'm not a 'flouncer' but won't be returning to this part of the forum for now.

Interesting debate and it has certainly drawn the experienced members of this forum.

I was gratified to see Herne is now supporting my view that the Statutory Instrument should be used, if only to give it a Parliamentary airing.

However, I say Janet steady on 'ludicrous' my goodness me, 'rude' oh dear, puts me in mind of Geoffrey Howe and the 'wet sheep' or was it 'toothless sheep' comment. If It34 thinks that is rude and has 'flounced out' we have plumbed new depths of, or should I say new heights of rudeness. It34 was clearly not a member when we enjoyed the great and entertaining instant put downs from the late and fondly remembered Rosie.

It34 you are being a trifle sensitive. Believe me if Mrs George was being rude, you would be seriously aware and I don't think 'ludicrous' even touches her ability to challenge issues.

 

[JanetGeorge]

It HAS been suggested that I know how to call a metal digging implement a spade!!

I did a little trawl - and it appears 1t34 is - by her own admission - a flouncer! AND easily offended. I certainly wasn't trying!

 

[Hunters]

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe this post has shifted.

Owen Patterson ( who rides to hounds) has stated that a vote should not be called because it would be lost. Agreed.

By starting this post I have tried & largely failed to energise some of you to call for more action either from the Mfha or your local mp.

Please, do not argue amongst yourselves, it really is now or never - the time ahead is precious - use it or lose it

 

[Countryman]

So Paterson didn't say a vote wouldn't be held. He said right now, there was no point. Which in my opinion is absolutely right - as someone said earlier, we only get one go at this so we've got to get it right.

I would have thought that even if the Scots vote to stay in the UK, in 2014, it's still likely that some sort of reform will be done to resolve the West Lothian Question BEFORE the 2015 election. Tories worried about losing the election know that doing something about the issue will certainly strengthen their hand significantly when it comes to forming a government. Hopefully, after reform, the strong majority in favour of repeal who can then vote on it will do, and we will have repeal.

It's true that in the run up to the election, the Tories might worry about bad PR from repeal but this could be mitigated by possibly bundling it with lots of other unpopular laws to be repealed.

Just by the way, to posters saying we shouldn't worry about Labour tightening the Act-the last government promised to do just that if they won in 2010 and believe me they could do an awful lot more than just ban terrier work. Have a look at the suggestions on the anti website POWA if you don't believe me.

However, I think it's unfair to criticise Cameron. Yes, he's made a lot of mistakes and been unable to deliver on a lot of issues, BUT, when it comes to hunting, he is on our side. It is an issue close to his heart.

 

[1t34]

It HAS been suggested that I know how to call a metal digging implement a spade!!

I did a little trawl - and it appears 1t34 is - by her own admission - a flouncer! AND easily offended. I certainly wasn't trying!

Well done you, how clever. I offered some advice and an alternative, if this is the reaction to people who want to help, it isn't really surprising that your goal of repeal has not been achieved. Maybe I am easily offended...and sensitive, but not half as sensitive as the people who you are trying to persuade to support your cause...............

And I do remember rightly, as I don't post that often, you thought this was an idea worth exploring a while ago. But never mind I was only trying to help a little help as I have some experience in developing strategies for changing policies and legislation, I shan't in future as this is clearly not what is wanted.

 

[Hunters]

I have just read an article on 'fracking' & it's possible benefits to the UK Market - yawn. But at least I benefited from being educated & informed on what could be a relevant issue.

Like the comments on here, one is open to debate not become personal.

Please i implore you, look just that bit further round the corner. Look at Germany (no hunting St all now after it's ban.). Pull together, show some leadership, write /email the Mfha - ask if you or your hunt can do anything to assist swaying some of these MPs.

Just please don't sit on your hands

 

[JanetGeorge]

And I do remember rightly, as I don't post that often, you thought this was an idea worth exploring a while ago. But never mind I was only trying to help a little help as I have some experience in developing strategies for changing policies and legislation, I shan't in future as this is clearly not what is wanted.

That was my polite response!! It actually took about 2 minutes 'exploring', I'm afraid, for the flaws to become apparent!

 

[Pale Rider]

Quoted on the 'Today' program, so it must be right, 3 out of 4 people support a ban on fox hunting with hounds.
If MP's truly reflect the wishes of their constituents, now is not the time to try to lift the ban. I feel as time goes on foxhunting will go the way of other bloodsports, like bear baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting. Totally unacceptable to the majority of people.

 

[Hunters]

Pale Rider - it's certainly not looking good. Due to the nature of my work, I spoke to many MP's before the ban & most admitted voting for a ban as:

A) it was a vote winner
B) it was 'tit for tat' reactive behaviour for what the Tories did to the miners.

What annoys me is that there is (and I admit it's a longshot) a glimmer of hope with the fact that we have a sympathetic prime minister. However, I feel that not enough is being done to 'assist' matters of persuasion.

Furthermore, when on a forum such as this, you attempt to galvanise support, you are shot down & forum users start bickering.

Hunting ( right now) needs strong leadership & all I see are in fights in hunts like the Heythrop, Bicester & Kimblewick & those in charge do little to address the real issues.

 

[Pale Rider]

Hunters, if Cameron has any sense, he'll distance himself from horses and hunting until Mrs Brooks has been convicted.