Tally ho, Simon!

"The War still continues you fool. However we are now fighting it in two different theatres. It may have escaped your attention, but British soldiers are now dying in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The levels of casualties will only increase, as will the unpopularity for the Operations. "

Public opposition to the war was at its height before the 2005 election, when 1m+ people marched through London and yet Labour was still returned to power, you ninny.

"Along with Labour's lies, hypocrisy, knee-jerk legislation, immigration failure, sleaze etc etc, the issue of war will continue to be a massive (and likely to be bigger than before) issue."

Why would it necessarily be bigger next time when all these accusations were hurled at the government by its opponents before the last election?

"Although hunting is a secondary issue to the majority of the population, it is still incredibly important to a lot of people. Once again, hundreds of those in support of hunting will be on the streets campaigning on behalf of candidates (not necessarily Tories) who demonstrate a sensible outlook on the hunting act and its absurdities."

You don't half post a load of bollocks. The number of people who will switch their vote away from Labour as a direct result of the hunt ban is miniscule - the vast majority of hunters are either Tory or extreme right-wing. That's why pro-hunters who helped the Tories last year were told to keep the issue of hunting quiet, if they prattled on about bringing back hunting on the door steps they would have been told where to go.

"How many could LACS muster up? I would suggest no more than a couple of soap dodgers and a malnourished mongrel. "

It doesn't say much for the strength or sophistication of your lobby if you were soundly defeated by a couple of soap dodgers and a malnourished mongrel.
 
(a) I was under the impression that your beloved Tories were in favour of the war.

(b) To exploit the death of these brave soldiers to promote hunting on a site like this is disgusting. Show some respect.
 
I couldn't find the updated list. With close friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan - many younger than me and on their second and third tours it struck a real chord with me. Every time they name a soldier killed, I thank God it isn't someone I know.
 
On the basis of a sexed up dossier that was created by the Labour administration. The decision to support the war was based on flawed intelligence. Given the correct details I doubt that Conservatives would have been rushing to support an unprincipled war.

For your information my posting of that list was supposed to show just what a cock up Iraq has been. Nowhere has that been used as support for hunting, merely as reasons not to support Labour and their half baked foreign policy. The fact that I am pro-hunting and a Tory has nothing to do with the price of fish. Every time I read that list I thank God that to date none of my friends are on it. At the last count I can think of at least 12 of my friends - few of them older than me (I'm 23) who are either currently on a tour of Iraq & Afghanistan or due to head there in the near future. Many of these will be on second or third tours. The majority are young officers, but several are the ordinary soldiers. These are the people that are clearing up the mess that this shower of a labour administration have created. So don't have the cheek to talk to me about respecting those young men and women who do a gallant job in the face of flagging public opinion, whilst equipped with tanks that don't run, radios that don't work, rifles that jam, inadequate body armour and boots that melt.
 
I believed that this thread had diverted itself towards politics in general. I forgot of course that the one track minds of the majority of this forum mean I must be shoe-horned into only discussing issues directly related to hunting on here!

Oh no another post not related directly to hunting...better delete it! I assume you will be censoring Joshua for daring to post a thread about racing on the hunting debate.
 
I'm all for devations away from hunting, but not ALL deviations. I think you have to have a very good reason for posting lists of recently killed soldiers on an internet forum, and an even better one when when the forum is devoted to debating hunting. In my opinion it showed a lack of judgement on your part.
 
(a) I was under the impression that your beloved Tories were in favour of the war.

(b) To exploit the death of these brave soldiers to promote hunting on a site like this is disgusting. Show some respect.
Click to expand...

Respect? What would you know about respect? As a serving soldier who has served in both the above theatres, I feel that I am well within my rights to make comment. If you don't like it, I couldn't care less.

With cretins like you residing within our shores, it beggars belief that people still sign up to defend the country and the likes of you.
 
I beg to differ. I aimed to show why Labour is a party not to be trusted and not to be voted for. The most effective way of doing so was to illustrate that there are real people being killed in these 'theatres of war' and real families being affected by the news.

You are no better than those idiots who arrested Maya Evans outside the cenotaph for daring to stand and read a list of the dead of Iraq.

The list has been on my blog for over a year and to date you are the only person who has accused me of poor judgement.
 
If it makes you happy, then go ahead: post the names of dead heroes on a forum devoted to hunting.
Click to expand...

LACS,

Thankyou for your kind permission.

One thing that you should remember is that to you those on the list are merely names, to me and a lot of my friends, a couple of the names were colleagues. Get over yourself.

Am I one of your heroes, even though I have not been killed?
 
I don't think one needs to be pro-hunting to support the armed services. I'm sure you have many fine characteristics: I just don't happen to like your excessively strident and intolerant persona on here, or indeed your fanatical support for what I consider to be cruelty to animals. In another context perhaps we'd get along OK.
 

''Public opposition to the war was at its height before the 2005 election, when 1m+ people marched through London and yet Labour was still returned to power, you ninny.''


The march about whch you spout took place in 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to persuade Blair not to commit troops to war. This was clearly before we started taking casualties and before we committed ourselves to more intense warfighting and casualties in Afghanistan.

None of those who participated in that march will have changed their perception about the legality and reason for war. Many who initially supported the war have now changed their point of view. I, and many of my peers are included.

I would therefore guarantee you that the issue of war and the support (lack of) shown to British Troops by this lacklustre government will be a massive and probably decisive issue.

 
''I just don't happen to like your excessively strident and intolerant persona on here,''

I am not intolerant, I just don't suffer fools and bigots gladly.


''In another context perhaps we'd get along OK.''

You reckon? Unlikely.
 
"Claire, the pro-hunters (backed by the CA) had high hopes of returning the Tories to power in 2004, that didn't happen. If you can't help a party regain power in the aftermath of an extremely unpopular war, I wouldn't over-estimate your importance next time round."
Looks like the antis brought the subject of an unpopular war into this discussion and now claiming its disrespectful!!! Do you always forget your topic of conversation so quickly? or only when you are losing the argument?
 
Unfortunatly, even a marginally unpopular war couldn't replace the marginally repulsive labour party with whatever it was leading the tories at the time...

But now it's a higly unpopular war, more and more boys dying all the time, and more and more promises of more troops going out, and they're now a highly repulsive labour party, what with two shags, blair getting his bod out on (yet another free) holiday, and now a atmosphere of racism thanks to the government and the press telling everyone that it's THEIR responsibility to watch out for terrorists and yobs whilst their politicians get nice pension packages for shagging as many secretaries as are willing (which is actually scarily a lot...)

With with Cameleon Dave, tories are set to win - people won't remember their affairs and scandle (major and currie, who WANTS to remember...) after 10 years of labour.
 
"None of those who participated in that march will have changed their perception about the legality and reason for war. Many who initially supported the war have now changed their point of view. I, and many of my peers are included."

Me too. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
 
As my original support for the war was based on opposition of what Hussein was doing to his own people, not the supposed threat he posed to the West, I doubt more accurate intelligence would have changed my opinion.
 
Why would I wish that when it has prevented thousands of animals from being hunted down and savaged to death by hounds, despite the efforts of your pals who choose to criminalise themselves?
 
Karl,

The Hunting Act has prevented nothing. Shame that you weren't out following a cub trail with me this morning. Then you would have seen how effective the Act really is.

If you are honest with yourself, you knew that anyway.
 
As I said, despite the efforts of your pals to criminalise themselves. There will always be boneheads who break the law, and if you choose to go out with them cub hunting that's up to you. It doesn't stop the Act being effective in many other cases.
 
If the Act was effective and unambiguous with no loop holes, why has here been only one prosecution? Why do the anti's claim that most hunts continue to break the law, but cannot provide sufficient evidence? Why can noone on this forum give a definitive answer as to whether or not A-A's actions are illegal?

Foxes continue to be killed whilst trail hunting. Foxes continue to die by snare. Foxes continue to die by gun.

Effective? Look at the facts 'bonehead'!
 
"Why can noone on this forum give a definitive answer as to whether or not A-A's actions are illegal?"

They aren't illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top