Repeal or No Repeal of The Acting Act 2004

[Sherston]

Why do you all continue to let a thread like this go on and on and on????? Both sides that is of course!

Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) and some pro hunting. But no ones opinion is going to change from this thread or any other and it does not matter anyhow, its life.

So I just don't know why you bother........

Enjoy the summer and the puppy and hound shows then horses will be in just like usual, but we can look forward to repeal.

Sherston

 

[Tiddlypom]

But no ones opinion is going to change from this thread or any other and it does not matter anyhow, its life.

So I just don't know why you bother........

Speak for yourself. I, for one, am following this thread with interest. Am always prepared to change my point of view if given a convincing reason to do so.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course)

Sherston

And this is just the type of unnecessary insulting and negative comment that I object to. With the assumption that people who do not agree must be ignorant in some way.

 

[Judgemental]

Why do you all continue to let a thread like this go on and on and on????? Both sides that is of course!

Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) and some pro hunting. But no ones opinion is going to change from this thread or any other and it does not matter anyhow, its life.

So I just don't know why you bother........

Enjoy the summer and the puppy and hound shows then horses will be in just like usual, but we can look forward to repeal.

Sherston

That is precisely the attitude that brought about the ban, because well informed folk, such as those who populate these forums did not, at that time, in 2004 have the facility to discuss the issues.

I agree with you, Smurf's Gran in your last post.

Plainly Sherston is a 'youngster' and needs to be educated. No doubt with age he or she will come to appreciate the pearls of wisdom that are debated here.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Cinnamon Toast, I really dislike it when heated debates reduce into slanging matches where some people on here cannot cope with someone who has a different point of view and this is challenged. At times responses range from personally insulting, condescending, to assuming that people are stupid as they have a different point of view, it makes the forum an unpleasant place and prevents proper debate, plus its not an adult way to behave, but these types of comments are abundant in some of the more "lively" threads.

In my reference to the forum being for everyone I suppose I was alluding to people being able to express their views without others assuming they must be mad, or insulting them. (I am ridiculous / overly dramatic!! though I admit this is mild compared with some of the stuff)

Plus your reference to this person was very unclear, it was not possible to tell as to whom you were referring and if it was someone active on threads now, and in particular, active on this one !!

I have no idea why you want to spin this out. I don't care what opinions others have: the more, the better, it enhances the debate. Ragwort was not mentioned on here except in the post I referenced-in jest, quite clearly. The poster I referred to was years back and was obsessed (I use the word advisedly, extremism would be more accurate) As you had no idea about what I was referencing, perhaps better not to get embroiled?

At no point have I been 'unable to cope' with others' points of view, that's actually very insulting. Slanging match? What are you on about? There is no slanging match anywhere on here. Don't mind me, but I made a joke (heaven forfend!) and now I'm being told I'm not adult and am making a slanging match of this. And you reckon I'm getting personal?? Gosh, the irony. :rolleyes3:

Don't mind me, I'd like to get back on topic, I'm learning a great deal.

 

[Countryman]

All I have to say is that laws should be based on animal welfare.

They *should not* be based on some people's individual feelings as to the morality of following-literally following-a method of wildlife maagement, whether on foot or horseback. That should not come into it.

Whether the people following are grinning and paying for the pleasure, or whether they are weeping is totally and utterly irrelevant to ANIMAL WELFARE.

Therefore the people should not come into it.
Any laws re hunting should be about one thing only - the welfare of the fox.
If it has been shown that hunting is good for this, then hunting should be supported and certainly not opposed or banned.

Making laws because people disliked who, they imagined (in their bigoted minds) hunted, is what got us into this current mess.

 

[Judgemental]

Daily Telegraph

Conservative attempts to scrap hunting ban could start within weeks
Exclusive: David Cameron wants to support a backbench proposal to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs - which is less certain to be successful in Parliament


Saturday 23 May 2015

By Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent

Moves to repeal the hunting ban are set to begin within a month after it emerged that David Cameron has met with senior colleagues to discuss how to organise a free vote.

The news means that a vote to repeal the controversial legislation could take place in the House of Commons within the next 12 months.

However, senior sources told The Telegraph that the Government is unlikely to repeal the ban in new legislation published in the Queen’s Speech next week.

Instead it is looking at support a backbench Private Members Bill which is less certain to be successful.

A repeal on the ban is unlikely to be included in the Queen's Speech

The decision would infuriate pro-hunting campaigners who feel that using the backbench route to repealing the ban would breach a general election manifesto commitment.

The 2004 Hunting Act – which bans the hunting with dogs of wild mammals including foxes, deer and hares - came into force 10 years ago in England and Wales in February 2005.

• Hunting Act 'unenforceable' and encouraging anti-social behaviour says senior MP
• Ten years on from the hunting ban, has anything really changed?

There has never been a better chance that the ban - which is hated by countryside sports campaigners - will be dropped.

The Tories' election manifesto commits the Tories to giving “Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time”.

A Downing Street source insisted on Friday that the Government was still planning to give MPs a free vote on a “Government Bill in Government time” to repeal the ban.

The Prime Minister - who hunted with the Heythrop Hunt before he became Conservative leader - is keen on persuading a backbench friendly Conservative MP who comes near the top of the Private Members' ballot on June 4 to propose repealing the 2004 Hunting Act.

David Cameron had pledged to give MPs a free vote on the issue if he won the election

The Government would then support the Bill by ensuring it has enough time to be debated on the floor of the Commons, which gives it better chance of becoming law.

The risk is that as a Private Members’ Bill the legislation will have to navigate through Parliament on Fridays when the Commons and Lords is sparsely attended.

A pro-hunting Tory MP will also have to come at the top of the ballot for the legislation to have a chance of succeeding.

There is also a concern that some of the intake of 74 new Conservative MPs who have an eye on retaining their seats in 2020 might be nervous about voting to repeal the ban.

The pro-hunting campaigners believe they have achieved the “magic number” of 286 votes it needs to win.

The figure is less than half of the 650-member House because the Scottish National Party's 56 MPs will not take part.

A poll by YouGov earlier this year found that a majority of British people support the 2004 ban on fox hunting, and even people living in rural areas shared this tendency.

Owen Paterson says the legislation is "bad for animal welfare"

Owen Paterson, a former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary, told The Telegraph: “There was a clear commitment to have a free vote on this issue.

“It is clearly bad legislation, bad for animal welfare, it’s bad for people who understand the countryside and I expect that to be delivered in the Queen’s Speech.

“It is a clear commitment in the manifesto. The Prime Minister stood up in front of the 22 committee and said he would deliver every word of the manifesto, and I am absolutely confident that he will.”

Tim Bonner, a spokesman at the Countryside Alliance, added: “This is a matter of trust between the Government and the countryside and we are confident that the vote will be delivered.

“The manifesto says that a Conservative government will ‘give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Acton a free vote, with a government bill in government time’.

“A vote on a Private Members Bill would not therefore fulfil the manifesto commitment.”

Mr Cameron says he is "a strong supporter of country sports"

In March Mr Cameron gave a passionate defence of hunting and pledged to give MPs a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if the Tories win the election.

The Act “has done nothing for animal welfare” and that he shares “the frustration” about the hunting ban, he said in a newspaper article.

Mr Cameron said that he has “always been a strong supporter of country sports”, adding: “It is my firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt, so I share the frustration that many people feel about the Hunting Act and the way it was brought in by the last government.

“The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time.”

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Making laws because people disliked who, they imagined (in their bigoted minds) hunted, is what got us into this current mess.

And now we have more insults !! this is so counterproductive to people actually discussing the issues in a constructive way. It also seems to me (and I am more than happy to be corrected in this) that, on this forum, the insults exclusively come from the pro hunt side.

This helps no one, and just serves to polarise the arguments.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

*Whispers* I'm not pro-hunt! If you want to see insults from the other side, I recommend the HSA Facebook page where Ricky Gervais suggests that all hunters should fall off their horses and break their effing necks and one of his charming followers says he'll kill all the horses. Lovely. There are lots of regular posts concerning how all the 'posh t w a t s' should be bludgeoned. The only hunter I know is far from posh.

I think Cameron needs to do this properly in a very open fashion or he risks losing credence from his followers. As it seems to be such a big issue and was clearly used in his manifesto, he needs to confront it and deal with it in the correct manner.

I'm not going to rely on the yougove pools after they claimed that Conservative and Labour were neck and neck up until the Conservatives won!

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Daily Telegraph

Conservative attempts to scrap hunting ban could start within weeks
Exclusive: David Cameron wants to support a backbench proposal to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs - which is less certain to be successful in Parliament


Saturday 23 May 2015

By Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent

Moves to repeal the hunting ban are set to begin within a month after it emerged that David Cameron has met with senior colleagues to discuss how to organise a free vote.

The news means that a vote to repeal the controversial legislation could take place in the House of Commons within the next 12 months.

However, senior sources told The Telegraph that the Government is unlikely to repeal the ban in new legislation published in the Queen’s Speech next week.

Instead it is looking at support a backbench Private Members Bill which is less certain to be successful.

A repeal on the ban is unlikely to be included in the Queen's Speech

The decision would infuriate pro-hunting campaigners who feel that using the backbench route to repealing the ban would breach a general election manifesto commitment.

The 2004 Hunting Act – which bans the hunting with dogs of wild mammals including foxes, deer and hares - came into force 10 years ago in England and Wales in February 2005.

• Hunting Act 'unenforceable' and encouraging anti-social behaviour says senior MP
• Ten years on from the hunting ban, has anything really changed?

There has never been a better chance that the ban - which is hated by countryside sports campaigners - will be dropped.

The Tories' election manifesto commits the Tories to giving “Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time”.

A Downing Street source insisted on Friday that the Government was still planning to give MPs a free vote on a “Government Bill in Government time” to repeal the ban.

The Prime Minister - who hunted with the Heythrop Hunt before he became Conservative leader - is keen on persuading a backbench friendly Conservative MP who comes near the top of the Private Members' ballot on June 4 to propose repealing the 2004 Hunting Act.

David Cameron had pledged to give MPs a free vote on the issue if he won the election

The Government would then support the Bill by ensuring it has enough time to be debated on the floor of the Commons, which gives it better chance of becoming law.

The risk is that as a Private Members’ Bill the legislation will have to navigate through Parliament on Fridays when the Commons and Lords is sparsely attended.

A pro-hunting Tory MP will also have to come at the top of the ballot for the legislation to have a chance of succeeding.

There is also a concern that some of the intake of 74 new Conservative MPs who have an eye on retaining their seats in 2020 might be nervous about voting to repeal the ban.

The pro-hunting campaigners believe they have achieved the “magic number” of 286 votes it needs to win.

The figure is less than half of the 650-member House because the Scottish National Party's 56 MPs will not take part.

A poll by YouGov earlier this year found that a majority of British people support the 2004 ban on fox hunting, and even people living in rural areas shared this tendency.

Owen Paterson says the legislation is "bad for animal welfare"

Owen Paterson, a former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary, told The Telegraph: “There was a clear commitment to have a free vote on this issue.

“It is clearly bad legislation, bad for animal welfare, it’s bad for people who understand the countryside and I expect that to be delivered in the Queen’s Speech.

“It is a clear commitment in the manifesto. The Prime Minister stood up in front of the 22 committee and said he would deliver every word of the manifesto, and I am absolutely confident that he will.”

Tim Bonner, a spokesman at the Countryside Alliance, added: “This is a matter of trust between the Government and the countryside and we are confident that the vote will be delivered.

“The manifesto says that a Conservative government will ‘give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Acton a free vote, with a government bill in government time’.

“A vote on a Private Members Bill would not therefore fulfil the manifesto commitment.”

Mr Cameron says he is "a strong supporter of country sports"

In March Mr Cameron gave a passionate defence of hunting and pledged to give MPs a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if the Tories win the election.

The Act “has done nothing for animal welfare” and that he shares “the frustration” about the hunting ban, he said in a newspaper article.

Mr Cameron said that he has “always been a strong supporter of country sports”, adding: “It is my firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt, so I share the frustration that many people feel about the Hunting Act and the way it was brought in by the last government.

“The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time.”

Very interesting - thanks Judgmental

So it looks as though the backbench route is to be the line taken - very "political" DC is shown to appear to fulfil his promise to those who want repeal while distancing himself already (by not fulfilling this as a manifesto promise)

This is such a political hot potato.

I bet there will be more polls broadcast soon and a lot more heated debates

 

[{51248}]

..... Some follow hounds for the social aspect, some for the opportunity to ride on land that would otherwise be unavailable to them and some for the enjoyment of watching the hounds work. .

In other words, they are obtaining enjoyment out of an activity in which animals are deliberately chased and killed. You may not call that a sport, but I still believe it to be morally wrong.

 

[{51248}]

Hunting was set up not as a sport but the most effective way to disperse the young adults before they can establish territories and breed and to kill those adults that were causing damage to livestock.

Do you have any documented evidence of that ?

 

[{51248}]

I may not understand your points but at least I read them.

The point is relevant because when you give a puppy or kitten a toy he will 'kill' it so you have unwittingly encouraged his hunting behaviour whether you like it or not. Any other interpretation of this behaviour is pure anthropomorphism. Predators hunt. They're either good at it or they perish.

Man may have to 'direct' a hound towards the correct quarry, hounds would just as happily kill a cat as a fox if left to their own devices. But there is nothing artificial about it, whatever you believe.

I agree that the point was irrelevant. Whether for subsistence hunting or fox hunting, a human has exploited the natural and bred instincts of a dog. But subsistence hunting is one thing, and participating in fox hunting is another.... the point hinges on the intention and desires of the human, not the instincts of the dog.

 

[{51248}]

Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) and some pro hunting.

Or you could say that some people are ignorant of the morality....

 

[Lizzie66]

In other words, they are obtaining enjoyment out of an activity in which animals are deliberately chased and killed. You may not call that a sport, but I still believe it to be morally wrong.

You have selectively quoted. What you missed out is the fact that the huntsman and the hounds are doing a job. I believe I did ask you earlier whether you would be OK with it if only the huntsman and hounds went out without all the followers, I don't believe you responded ?

 

[fburton]

Or you could say that some people are ignorant of the morality....

Which would also be unfair, imo.

 

[{51248}]

You have selectively quoted. What you missed out is the fact that the huntsman and the hounds are doing a job. I believe I did ask you earlier whether you would be OK with it if only the huntsman and hounds went out without all the followers, I don't believe you responded ?

The selected quote was the part that most interested me. I don't believe that I misrepresented anything. I did not reply to your earlier question due to pressure of time, but yes, if foxes do indeed need to be culled and if using dogs is the most effective and humane, then I would have no objection to an activity that did not involve followers. Note that there are 'ifs' in this and they are big 'ifs'.

 

[Lizzie66]

The selected quote was the part that most interested me. I don't believe that I misrepresented anything. I did not reply to your earlier question due to pressure of time, but yes, if foxes do indeed need to be culled and if using dogs is the most effective and humane, then I would have no objection to an activity that did not involve followers. Note that there are 'ifs' in this and they are big 'ifs'.

Thanks for expanding. In which case I think we are in agreement on the principle of hunting with regard to animal welfare and cruelty and the only disagreement is around the morality of watching.

As this is highly personal then I am very much that it is each to their own. My morals might be different to yours but that does not make either of us right or wrong just different.

 

[{51248}]

" In which case I think we are in agreement on the principle of hunting with regard to animal welfare and cruelty and the only disagreement is around the morality of watching. "

Ummm... I have not discussed my feelings on the animal welfare or cruelty aspects, so you should not assume that I agree with you....

"As this is highly personal then I am very much that it is each to their own. My morals might be different to yours but that does not make either of us right or wrong just different"

... but it's refreshing that you have such a mature viewpoint.

 

[Fellewell]

I agree that the point was irrelevant. Whether for subsistence hunting or fox hunting, a human has exploited the natural and bred instincts of a dog. But subsistence hunting is one thing, and participating in fox hunting is another.... the point hinges on the intention and desires of the human, not the instincts of the dog.

The point hinges on the most natural and effective way to cull a fox. Subsistence or not matters not one jot to the hounds or indeed the fox.

 

[{51248}]

The point hinges on the most natural and effective way to cull a fox. Subsistence or not matters not one jot to the hounds or indeed the fox.

Well your point might hinge round that , but my point (and the reason why I oppose fox hunting) is different and has been stated in my earlier posts.