Poll result

[CARREG]

As you may or may not know radio 4 ran a poll to see what law people would like to see repealed, the result of the poll was;

The Hunting Act with 52.8%

Dangerous Dogs Act: 1.6%
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act : 6.2%
Human Rights Act: 6.1%
European Communities Act : 29.7%
The Act of Settlement: 3.6%

We now have the opponents of hunting crying foul, saying the C.A and other pro organisations lobbied their members to vote, hardly a crime as virtually the whole of Parliment is run on lobbying........Quote from the independent, "......In 1996 the programme's vote for a man or woman of the year voting had to be stopped early after it emerged that Labour was trying to organise a mass vote for Tony Blair....."

..................Carreg

 

[Flossie06]

Well if enough people had been equally motivated to vote for one of the other Acts then they would have won. Apparently more people were keen to repeal the Hunting Act so it won. Perfectly fair.

 

[Jerome]

Which goes to show that some people have far too much time on their hands...

 

[flying_change]

"The Hunting Act with 52.8% "

And the effect of this will be..... 0.0%

 

[Jerome]

haha!

 

[Flossie06]

As it happened over Christmas and most people were on holiday they probably did have some time on their hands. And so what anyway?

 

[CARREG]

Bitterness is a terrible thing....lol...lol...........Carreg

 

[flying_change]

Why would I be bitter ? Do you really think that this poll will change anything ?

 

[Eagle_day]

The antis have been flooding polls for years which may well have encouraged a ban (of sorts) by spuriously stating - for example - that a majority of the public would be in favour.

We've now got our act together and are a lot better organised and in far more numerous numbers that the actively campaigning antis ever were.

To mix a metaphor: now the boot's on the other foot, they don't like it up 'em.

 

[runaway]

Thank you for posting that info CARREG I cast my supportive vote and am thankful that you have posted the result info as I was wondering what the outcome was.

In answer to those that have comment that the people who cast a vote probably have too much time on their hands: what are you doing on here if you too haven't time on your hands ??????

 

[wurzel]

Do you think the hunting act has changed anything?

 

[flying_change]

You tell me. I've already asked if the many hunts that were out on Boxing Day wree hunting legally or not. No-one gave me a straight answer.

 

[flying_change]

Can you tell me when there was an anti-hunting poll similar to this pro-hunting poll on the BBC ?

 

[wurzel]

I think several hunts on Exmoor broke the law.

But it is hard to tell.

I broke the law on the 28th.

 

[Eagle_day]

No I can't, but if you want a comparison look at the petitions on the Number 10 website. The last time I looked there were 16,000 names supporting the repeal of the Hunting Act; there are several anti petitions: in each case the response is pathetically small.

 

[flying_change]

Then on the basis of your knowledge, the answer to "Do you think the hunting act has changed anything" is "It's hard to tell".

 

[flying_change]

I think the issue is.... are you comparing like with like ?

 

[Christmas_Kate]

as pro hunting, even I have to say, with hunting not really having been affected as much as anticipated, why on earth should the goverment spend yet more money and time on this??

The dangerous dogs act, IMO is far more important, especially in view of recent events.

 

[Eagle_day]

Yes, I think I am, RS.

The point being that the number of active pros is far greater than the number of active antis.

You may as well ask if the hunts on Boxing Day were obeying the law because LACS/Huntwatch can't tell you. I'll bet they didn't have enough employees or volunteers to place 1 monitor with each of the 314 hunts that was out. On the other hand there were over 300,000 hunting supporters following that day.

 

[severnmiles]

Yes but Kate26, it shouldn't be repealed!

 

[flying_change]

Perhaps some of the "314 hunts that was out.... [and] ... over 300,000 hunting supporters" might be able to say if they were legal or otherwise.

 

[severnmiles]

Remember F_C, legal hunting still means killing foxes. We didn't make the law.

 

[Eagle_day]

I'm afraid if you were thinking I'm going to stand up and say 'I'm Spartacus', then I afraid you'll be disappointed.

We were pursuing legal hound activities and working within the exemptions of the Hunting Act. As for the other 313 hunts, I haven't the foggiest ...

 

[flying_change]

"We were pursuing legal hound activities and working within the exemptions of the Hunting Act."

Good.

 

[flying_change]

But were you within it ?

 

[CARREG]

F.C
Let me get this straight, a fox killed by whatever means within the law, is more acceptable to you than a fox killed by a quicker more humane method outside of the law, have I got that right............Carreg

 

[flying_change]

I guess there are two issues....

1) The fact that people comply with the law makes me happier than when they do not comply with the law.

2) I would be happier still if people both complied with the law and also killed foxes only when that was strictly necessary and in a humane manner.

RS

 

[Sooty]

That doesn't really answer Carreg's question...

 

[severnmiles]

But were you within it ?

Would we be anywhere else? I mean did you want us above it (which of course we are...joke!), below it, to the side of it?

 

[flying_change]

Well a very strict answer would be the following....

No, because I'm not presently discussing that aspect of hunting. A very concise summary of the aspect that I have in mind at the moment would be....

1) The fact that people comply with the law makes me happier than when they do not comply with the law.

2) I would be happier still if people both complied with the law and also killed foxes only when that was strictly necessary and in a humane manner.

RS