Poll of polls: sensational result!

[Jerome]

The findings of a recent academic study of all the relevant polls and hunting-related campaigns conducted since the hunting ban were published today. They are quite staggering and will delight all pros.

They show that of the 1255 polls in the various media since the ban, every single one has been won by hunters and normally with an overwhelming majority. The researchers found that the "votes" cast were as follows:

Pro hunting: 1,765,754,221
Anti: 10

Perhaps an even more remarkable statistic relates to the total number of hours pro hunters are estimated to have spent on the campaign to reverse the ban:

Total number of hours: 565,778,333

By any standards, this represents an enormous victory for the Countryside Alliance in particular and hunters in general.
































Oh, but hunting is still banned...

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Oh, but hunting is still banned...

...and only 29% of people think the ban is working.


And I went out and illegally huntied deer with dogs this morning.


And I couldn't give a damn what you think.

 

[Hercules]

Has hunting been banned?

It didn't look that way last Saturday.

 

[Flossie06]

Lol don't know why but I do find Jerome's posts about these polls really funny!

 

[Jerome]

If you "don't give a damn" about what I thnk why bother to reply to my posts?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Because I enjoy taking the piss out of you.

Some people are worth debating with, but not you.

You're posts are only good to be laughed at.

I hope that helps.

 

[Jerome]

Quite how are taking the piss out of me by saying "And I couldn't give a damn what you think"? Rather than taking the piss, this is just another pointless (and indeed inconsistent) bad-tempered comment from yourself.

Learn to play the ball and not the man and you'll find people may start to take you seriously.

 

[Hercules]

Jerrythrob,

Have you ever been taken seriously? I would imagine that even your own mother fed you using a catapult.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What ball Jerry? There is no ball as far as your posts are concerned, just bullshit, mainly cut and pasted from other people.

 

[celt]

Why do some people find it necessary to become personal and abusive towards each other, I realise that the hunting ban is an emotive subject but fail to accept the need for this abuse this applies to both pro and anti, on a personal note I do not support hunting in any shape or form this does not mean that I would revert to bully boy tactics on the contrary I am a true believer that the pen is mightier than the sword and as it stands the hunting of mammals with more than two dogs is against the law, if you do not agree with this law then do go about changing it in a lawful manner and not take the route of Ereiam-jh by openly stating that you hunt illegally and couldn’t give a damn what people think this is a route for disaster.

 

[Hercules]

Celt,

The pen may be mightier than the sword, but in your case it is not. In your diatribe that was in excess of eight lines, there was not one full stop or question mark. I suggest that you revert to the sword.

 

[celt]

Once again evidence of a personal and abusive post, is there any need for it, I am trying to enter a debate here I apologise if my grammar offends you but English is my second language after all.

 

[Hercules]

Nothing abusive at all. Just a bit of gentle education.

 

[wurzel]

"not take the route of Ereiam-jh by openly stating that you hunt illegally and couldn’t give a damn what people think this is a route for disaster."


Why is this a route for disaster?

 

[CARREG]

".......as it stands the hunting of mammals with more than two dogs is against the law...."

No its not, there are other exemptions, why dont you try and get your facts right before coming on here..........Carreg

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"this is a route for disaster"

That would be great, bring it on.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I do.

Having laws which make people criminals when they are doing nothing wrong just to satisfy people's prejudice is an extremely silly thing to do.

Flushing out wild mammals with any number of dogs should be legal because it isn't cruel. Making me a criminal for something so innocuous just negates the concept of crime.

The law is self-evidently unwarranted.

People are perfectly entitled to break it.

It's boring I know but just as boring is the hypocrisy of antis, the Government the RSPCA and LACS who refuse to admit that the law is wrong and should not be enforced.

 

[Jerome]

You sound bad-tempered and frustrated. This is just an internet forum: it doesn't really make much difference. Don't take it so seriously!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"Don't take it so seriously! "

Do you think that I do? Why should I take the Hunting Act seriously?

 

[celt]

"not take the route of Ereiam-jh by openly stating that you hunt illegally and couldn’t give a damn what people think this is a route for disaster."


Why is this a route for disaster?

Clearly you want the hunting act either amended or repealed completely. It is my opinion that by flaunting the law, as some of you openly state, you are weakening you’re case. By adopting this blasé attitude I feel that you are playing into the hands of those that oppose you.
It is also worth remembering that this forum is open to all and who knows if there shall ever be a review then quite possibly posts from sites such as this could be used as mitigating evidence against you.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'm not really worried about mitigating evidence against me Celt. Because I've reported my law breaking to the police several times and offered them all the evidence they might need to prosecute me.

If you want to keep the law as it is then fair enough but you should not then expect me to have to obey it. The Police have told me in no uncertain terms that I won't be prosecuted, which is great because it means I can carry on.

The law says I can only flush out with up to two dogs if I then shoot the deer. Well I'm sorry but I'll carry on flushing with four and I won't shoot the deer.

Surely from an anti's point of view it's best to have a sensible law that people actually have to obey? In some ways I'm only trying to help...

------------------

When I see my glass half empty, I think 'great, soon it'll be time for another!'

 

[peakpark]

It is also worth remembering that this forum is open to all and who knows if there shall ever be a review then quite possibly posts from sites such as this could be used as mitigating evidence against you.

That sounds a bit threatening, Celt, though indicative I suppose of today's surveillance society.
Also, mitigating means less severe, or less damaging. Are you sure you don't mean supporting evidence?

 

[celt]

I'm not really worried about mitigating evidence against me Celt. Because I've reported my law breaking to the police several times and offered them all the evidence they might need to prosecute me.
----------------

All that I can say is that if this is indeed the case then those police officers who you refer to are unfit to perform their duty and should seriously question their choice of careers.
On a personal note I think that I need to clarify the point that I am not a so-called ‘anti’. I have absolutely no problem with the destruction of an animal as long as it is deemed absolutely necessary and done in the most humane method available.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"All that I can say is that if this is indeed the case then those police officers who you refer to are unfit to perform their duty and should seriously question their choice of careers. "

You're talking about the previous and current Cheif constables of the Devon and Cornwall police force.

Police officers have a duty to decide which cases to bring before the CPS. They do this on the basis of public interest. There's no public interest in stopping me from openly flouting the Hunting Act. It's in the public interest for bad laws to be exposed and that is what I am trying to do.

It's not in the public interest for me to have to shoot the deer I flush out. LACS called for a line or lines of guns to nbe used in the coun tryside. Do you think such firing squads are in the public interest?

 

[celt]

Police officers cannot pick and choose which laws they intend enforcing however I accept that they do prioritise which is only right. If what you say is true in that you have offered the police the evidence to prosecute for a breach of the hunting act then quite simply they are duty bound to take action regardless of their priorities. So once again I say that those officers regardless of their rank, should seriously consider their choice of career.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

That's simply not true there are loads of laws on the statute book that the police won't enforce. Most of them are ancient laws which are ridiculous in modern times. The Hunting Act is just a modern law that is ridiculous in modern times.

What I do isn't cruel, that's why I shouldn't be prosecuted for it. Hunting can be cruel and people shouldn't be cruel. I am not cruel to the deer that I flush out. So I should be allowed to carry on even though it is illegal. And by happy coincidence I am allowed to carry on because the police let me.

That's what happens when you have absurd laws.

 

[wurzel]

"Clearly you want the hunting act either amended or repealed completely."

Is that clear to you? I think it is pointless. Its repeal means nothing to me.

"It is my opinion that by flaunting the law, as some of you openly state, you are weakening you’re case. By adopting this blasé attitude I feel that you are playing into the hands of those that oppose you."

But I have no case !!

No one opposes me in practice. Its thought crime. You think I should snare foxes. I disagree and therefore ignore you.

"It is also worth remembering that this forum is open to all and who knows if there shall ever be a review then quite possibly posts from sites such as this could be used as mitigating evidence against you. "


Guilty as charged !!!

The court case should be fun.

I am available for arrest in the Lion, Timberscombe, tomorrow night.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"I am available for arrest in the Lion, Timberscombe, tomorrow night."

Make sure you finish your pint first!

 

[wurzel]

" If what you say is true in that you have offered the police the evidence to prosecute for a breach of the hunting act then quite simply they are duty bound to take action regardless of their priorities. So once again I say that those officers regardless of their rank, should seriously consider their choice of career. "

I agree.

Sack 'em all!

 

[wurzel]

I think I will manage if I am quick !!

Maybe I will go somewhere else.

Poltimore arms !!

Or Sandyway.

Should be safe there.