Latest poll (well, I say latest..........)

[Eagle_day]

The reason why I don't believe the LACS poll is because it bucks the trend since 1999. If further polls show that this trend (ie. the fall in public support for anti-hunting legislation) has reversed, then I'll take it more seriously.

What convictions? What riot?

Hunts desparately hanging on? You need to get out more. Let's wait to hear what Endy has to say.

Did you mean 'the number of' criminal convictions continues to grow? My convictions, criminal or not, remain steadfast.

And if we're consulting the ouija board, would Tony Banks call it a ban?

 

[Paul T]

There's no evidence that the Feb 2007 poll 'bucks the trend' at all. In order to assess this you would need to produce independent poll results since 1999 which asked exactly the same question each time to a representative sample of the population. However, Mori polls since then have shown varying results (admittedly to different questions):

1999: And now some questions about hunting wild mammals with dogs (eg fox hunting and stag hunting). To what extent do you support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in Britain?

63% support
24% oppose

2001: I am now going to read out a list of policies that a new Labour Government might carry out. Please tell me whether you support or oppose each.

Ban fox hunting:

57% Support
31% oppose


2002: If the MPs vote to ban hunting, would you support or oppose the government moving ahead - irrespective of the Lords' vote - to bring in a ban on hunting this year?

62% support government bringing in a ban
26% oppose government bringing in a ban

2003: Now a question on traditional sports, where dogs are set upon wild animals. Which, if any, of these do you think, on balance, should be legal in Britain today?
Yes, should be legal No, should not be legal
Deer Hunting 15 82
Fox Hunting 28 69
Hare Hunting and Coursing 19 77

2005: To what extent do you personally support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales?

47% support
26% oppose

2007: Which statement on this card best describes your own view of the ban on hunting with dogs?

57% support the ban staying in place
17% support the ban being scrapped

Although these are different questions, all, except the Feb 2005 poll you're fond of, show majorities against hunting. As far as I'm concerned, it's the Feb 2005 poll which appears to have bucked the trend.

As Tony Banks supported the Hunting Act, yes I'm confident if he were here today he'd call it a ban. I'm equally confident he'd be disappointed (but not surprised) with the number of pro-hunt fanatics willing to criminalise themselves.

BTW, I get out quite a bit. You should try it.

 

[Oneofthepack]

People shouldn't assume that those of us who don't hunt know nothing about it or that those who campaign against it are the only ones that have an valid opinion. Take the shipping of live horses from EU countries. Does ANYONE agree with it? I would hope not, but how many people in this country actually actively campaign against it. How many people supported the use of veal crates for calves? Probably not many but how many people actually campaigned to get it stopped? It's not the quantity of people that campaign but the quality of the argument that counts.

 

[Eagle_day]

I can resist the temptation no longer ....

You use statistics like the drunkard uses a lamp post: more for support than illumination.

 

[Paul T]

I'm finding it rather difficult to resist the temptation as well...

You dismiss statistics like Creationists dismiss Darwinism: in the end it’s because you all believe what you want to believe, irrespective of the facts. There are none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn.

Can you substantiate any of your earlier statements or were they just as pie in the sky?

 

[Eagle_day]

... or, like the Bourbons, you have forgotten nothing, and learnt nothing.

For those of you out there who aren't yet bored rigid by being battered with statistics, the CA published this paper last year:

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/images/stories/pdf/2006_poll_opinion_on_hunting_with_dogs.pdf

How do I support my assertions? Through first-hand experience and from attributable sources.

Oh, and your choice of the Darwinism analogy is particularly meritricious. My Professor of Zoology, certainly no Creationalist, didn't accept his theory as proven; it isn't supported by the fossil record, you see.

 

[wrighty]

"For those of you out there who aren't yet bored rigid by being battered with statistics, the CA published this paper last year"

"You use statistics like the drunkard uses a lamp post: more for support than illumination."

Make your mind up.

 

[Paul T]

"For those of you out there who aren't yet bored rigid by being battered with statistics, the CA published this paper last year:

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/images/stories/pdf/2006_poll_opinion_on_hunting_with_dogs.pdf"

Remind me, is this the same summary which was criticised by the Chairman of the CA's own polling company, NOP, as misleading because it's comparing apples with pears?

In any case, at the time of much of that polling, one of the licensing options being asked about was widely reported as amounting to a ban. I can't blame the public for supporting that as many believed it would effectively kill off hunting animals for fun.

"How do I support my assertions? Through first-hand experience and from attributable sources."

How do you square that claim with, for example, your following statement:

"No. Because a huge majority of the UK's population don't really give a fig about hunting."

Mori polling (2007) shows that just 19% neither support or oppose a ban with a further 3% having no opinion and 2% not knowing. Therefore, at most 24% couldn't give a fig, and remainder hold opinions (with 52% holding strong opinions - i.e. a majority). It doesn't surprise me that you're arrogant enough to believe you know what the public thinks more than they do!

"Oh, and your choice of the Darwinism analogy is particularly meritricious. My Professor of Zoology, certainly no Creationalist, didn't accept his theory as proven; it isn't supported by the fossil record, you see. "

And I'm sure somewhere there must be a professor who believes the earth is flat and fairies prance around at the bottom of the garden.

 

[Eagle_day]

"And I'm sure somewhere there must be a professor who believes the earth is flat and fairies prance around at the bottom of the garden."

Not at Durham University.

 

[Paul T]

Has Durham Uni got a monopoly on sensible and conventional professors? Somehow I doubt it.

BTW, have you managed to dig out that evidence yet that supports your assertion: 'a huge majority of the UK's population don't really give a fig about hunting'?

 

[wurzel]

A huge majority of the United Kingdom don't give a toss about wild animals, hunting, or the countryside.

But you believe what you want.

I would say our overwhelmingly urban population care mainly about interest rates, petrol prices and who is shagging who in Eastenders.

I might be inbred but oi reckons oi unnerstanns folk bedder un ee.

 

[hatters]

I suspect most people who approve of the ban live in towns, think all people who hunt are toffs, think killing a fox with hounds is cruel (far kinder to bungle a shot and let it run around on three legs for a few months in agony) and think meat is a plant that grows in a polythene wrapper. With so much real animal cruelty in the world, and the UK, it is a shame the KFC munching masses don't find out some facts before responding to a poll.

I agree 100%!! ( and I live in a town )

 

[wurzel]

""I would say our overwhelmingly urban population care mainly about interest rates, petrol prices and who is shagging who in Eastenders"
But isn't it the hunting people who care so much about the countryside that say it is the city dwelling people that are poking their noses in on their affairs?
Come on, make your minds up.
Are the city dwellers bothered about country matters or not?"


I think you are getting a bit confused about numbers my northern friend !!

60 million people in the country. If you say the small majority of people who voted these liars in did it because of hunting then I will have to believe you. See, that is the difference between you and I. I believe some of what you say. You think all I say is rubbish.

How many anti's do we get on hunts on Exmoor? Usually zero, sometimes up to about 5.

How many participants? between 50 and 300. You work it out.

The main instigators of this ban are very few, Stephen Harris, Tony banks, jackie Ballard. Not many is it?

Luckily Banks is dead and the others will soon be gone!

Let me ask you a question. When do you think the last hunt that is actually hunting will stop?

Try and be honest.

 

[Paul T]

"You think all I say is rubbish."

I wonder why!

"How many anti's do we get on hunts on Exmoor? Usually zero, sometimes up to about 5.

How many participants? between 50 and 300. You work it out."

Thanks but I'd rather use properly conducted independent opinion polls as accurate measures of public opinion rather than your warped interpretations. Since when was counting a bunch of inbred reactionaries chasing animals on Exmoor any sensible indication of public opinion?


"Luckily Banks is dead and the others will soon be gone!"

Why is it lucky Tony Banks is dead? Was he really that effective? It's a pity you have so much hatred and bitterness.

"Let me ask you a question. When do you think the last hunt that is actually
hunting will stop?

Try and be honest."

You seem proud that pro-hunting fanatics are willing to break the law. I'll be honest and say it all depends on how long they're prepared to carry on breaking the law. Cock-fighting was banned almost two hundred years ago but misfits still continue it. The fact there are criminals doesn't make a law wrong.

 

[Paul T]

"A huge majority of the United Kingdom don't give a toss about wild animals, hunting, or the countryside."

Since when has a straw poll of your inbred bumpkin associates been any sensible indication of public opinion?

 

[Eagle_day]

"BTW, have you managed to dig out that evidence yet that supports your assertion: 'a huge majority of the UK's population don't really give a fig about hunting'?"

The poll that found 1% of those interviewed thought hunting should be a priority for government policy. I'll find the link when I have the time, but 99% is a 'huge majority' in my book.

Let's face it, you're dealing with people who get up before 4am in September to prepare for a morning's hunting. I'll be at the barricades. You'll never win.

 

[Paul T]

This hardly shows the rest couldn't give a toss about hunting. I feel strongly about the issue but I don't think banning it should be a priority for the Government above everything.

I'm one of those unusual people who believe Governments can actually deal with more than one issue at a time.

What do you mean I'll never win? Hunting has been banned, you doughnut

 

[wurzel]

""You think all I say is rubbish."

I wonder why!

"How many anti's do we get on hunts on Exmoor? Usually zero, sometimes up to about 5.

How many participants? between 50 and 300. You work it out."

Thanks but I'd rather use properly conducted independent opinion polls as accurate measures of public opinion rather than your warped interpretations. Since when was counting a bunch of inbred reactionaries chasing animals on Exmoor any sensible indication of public opinion?"

See what I mean? I'll tell you what. You tell me the numbers instead then.

"Why is it lucky Tony Banks is dead? Was he really that effective? It's a pity you have so much hatred and bitterness."

Lucky for me because it gives me pleasure. Simple as that. I have no bitterness at all but you are correct that I hated him. That is why I feel lucky.


"You seem proud that pro-hunting fanatics are willing to break the law. I'll be honest and say it all depends on how long they're prepared to carry on breaking the law. Cock-fighting was banned almost two hundred years ago but misfits still continue it. The fact there are criminals doesn't make a law wrong."

I am extemely proud. And I do my best to break the law myself whenever possible. I do not recognise this law at all. To me it has no validity. I am quite confident in my belief. I can tell you that I and many of my associates and relatives (including my children) are determined to continue breaking this law.

What has cock fighting got to do with anything ?

 

[wurzel]

"Since when has a straw poll of your inbred bumpkin associates been any sensible indication of public opinion?"

This is why you can't understand the subject. You think hunters are some kind of sub-humans with no valid opinion. Very much like Hitler did with Jews and Gypsies.

He had a very clear idea of his own superiority as well.

 

[wurzel]

Sorry doughnut.

Hunting has not been banned.

 

[wrighty]

"You think hunters are some kind of sub-humans with no valid opinion."
I don't think that but you seem to think that because I don't live near Exmore I don't know about hunting therefore can't have an opinion.

I don't think you are sub human, just money orientated, blood loving, animal torturers.
(Oooops, sorry, I forgot you're all animal loving people with the continuation of the species in your forethoughts)

 

[wurzel]

"I don't think that but you seem to think that because I don't live near Exmore I don't know about hunting therefore can't have an opinion."

Wrong. Anybody can have an opinion. I don't think you can have a valid opinion.

"I don't think you are sub human, just money orientated, blood loving, animal torturers.
(Oooops, sorry, I forgot you're all animal loving people with the continuation of the species in your forethoughts) "

Wrong again. Somewhere between the two. If your "minds" stopped swinging between such extremes you might have a chance of understanding us.

My animals are often inspected by vets and the RSPCSA. They have never mentioned animal torture. Strange.

 

[endymion]

I bet most of the people you know who hunt are members of the C.A or some other pro lobby group.

Most of the people I know that are anti are not members of any lobby group and do not actively protest.

You would be quite right to say that most antis are not interested in actually fighting for their beliefs, otherwise we would have protests ten times the size of the one at parliament on a regular basis.

 

[Paul T]

Read the Hunting Act, doughnut.

 

[Paul T]

Where have I said I believe hunters are sub-human with no valid opinion? You shouldn't assume that comments aimed at you and your fellow bumpkins are directed at the whole of the hunting community. You're really not that important or significant.

Playing thr Nazi card doesn't enhance your arguments either.

 

[Paul T]

"You tell me the numbers instead then."

If you had the gumption to look further up this thread you'd notice I alreay have.

Now why doesn't it surprise me the death of Tony Banks gives you pleasure?

"I am extemely proud. And I do my best to break the law myself whenever possible."

Doubt it, you're more of a windup merchant than a doer. You'd rather sit in front of your computer and leave the action to the cannon fodder (ie. the likes of Wright, Pillivant and Down).

"What has cock fighting got to do with anything ?"

Lots.

 

[wurzel]

"Read the Hunting Act, doughnut. "

I have. And ?

 

[wurzel]

"You're really not that important or significant."

Actually I am. You are wrong again!

I hunt and I own land that is hunted across. I own the deer that are hunted.

I would say that makes me a key "stakeholder" in your little problem.

 

[Paul T]

While you're entitled to your opinions, no matter how quirky or marginal they are, don't fool yourself Faggot; you're not a 'stakeholder' and it's not my 'problem'.

By your own admission, you're a criminal (although I have my doubts as I suspect you're all gob and no action) - if you really are, perhaps that will make you a 'stakeholder' in the criminal justice system one day.

 

[Paul T]

It's clearly not getting through.

Okay, so if hunting isn't banned why all the fuss and why do you say you are prepared to go to prison?