severnmiles
Well-Known Member
Its not LB's fault, he can't understand the concept of 'four seasons', he thinks its just a piece written by Vivaldi.
The Further Decline of the Hunting Fraternity...
- Thread starter Blairite
- Start date
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
LOL
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"but I personally can't stand LB"
I can see why that might be, it's why I stay away from politics, you must be able to see why I "personally can't stand" some of the posters in this forum.
Yoga is very good for you, phensuei (feng shui) is a load of **** but people believe in different things so can't grumble too much.
I can see why that might be, it's why I stay away from politics, you must be able to see why I "personally can't stand" some of the posters in this forum.
Yoga is very good for you, phensuei (feng shui) is a load of **** but people believe in different things so can't grumble too much.
soggy
Well-Known Member
Ooh! Intriguing.
How about naming them?
wrighty
Well-Known Member
I don't think that would be appropriate.
soggy
Well-Known Member
Who's worried about propriety.
I'm sure none of then would be overly concerned at your disapproval.
I'm sure none of then would be overly concerned at your disapproval.
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
Have to say that wrighty is wittering on about not being violent (thereore im assuming non confrontational, sorry to assume ive read earlier posts and know how terrible thats considered!!) then why bother coming on to a hunting forum to try and spark a debate with people who want to share an pastime which they enjoy with others who share similar pastimes!?
I also have to say that I would appluade anyone who tried to get near enough my horse to remove my whip, its not me thats the violent one in our partnership!!
I also have to say that I would appluade anyone who tried to get near enough my horse to remove my whip, its not me thats the violent one in our partnership!!
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"I feel any physical contact is violent. "
That'sh no wot yoo shaid las night !!!
That'sh no wot yoo shaid las night !!!
Blairite
Well-Known Member
The Torygraph - can't say I read it - typical for hunting stock such as yourself to use it as your Bible!!
Lord_Blairite
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
Do you just ignore the desperate situation that the countryside and farmers are in then? Do you just trot off to the supermarket and buy your meat with a picture of a cow and some cr*p about famers and think your doing your bit!?
Just dont think about the calves that get shot because there worth nothing (because veal is so much worse!) and the farmers that get paid tuppence for milk that gets sold on for a massive profit?
Forget the copses that will be ripped up because they have no use as the labour party are determined that any way of controlling wildlife is cruel (unless its shooting at them so they can run away injured and die a slow painful death).
Just dont think about the calves that get shot because there worth nothing (because veal is so much worse!) and the farmers that get paid tuppence for milk that gets sold on for a massive profit?
Forget the copses that will be ripped up because they have no use as the labour party are determined that any way of controlling wildlife is cruel (unless its shooting at them so they can run away injured and die a slow painful death).
Blairite
Well-Known Member
Severnmiles
You are hurting my feelings!
Its not my fault that we - the Labour Government - have finally laid to rest your hunting with hounds by classing it as an illegal pursuit.
Cabbage Green aren't we SM!!
Regards
Lord_Blairite
You are hurting my feelings!
Its not my fault that we - the Labour Government - have finally laid to rest your hunting with hounds by classing it as an illegal pursuit.
Cabbage Green aren't we SM!!
Regards
Lord_Blairite
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"thereore im assuming non confrontational"
Confrunting someone or something has nothing to do with any form of violence. You can confront without threatening.
As for your whip and your horse, there would be no need to remove it if you're not threatening anyone with it, if you were you would probably be using the horse as a weapon by pushing people out of the way.
Confrunting someone or something has nothing to do with any form of violence. You can confront without threatening.
As for your whip and your horse, there would be no need to remove it if you're not threatening anyone with it, if you were you would probably be using the horse as a weapon by pushing people out of the way.
Blairite
Well-Known Member
Wrighty
I dealt with Soggy Brain and Tom Thumb over on the BBC boards and I can tell you now the nature of the beast never changes.
I am being tongue in cheek with them by the way.
;-)
Regards
Lord_Blairite
I dealt with Soggy Brain and Tom Thumb over on the BBC boards and I can tell you now the nature of the beast never changes.
I am being tongue in cheek with them by the way.
;-)
Regards
Lord_Blairite
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Its not my fault that we - the Labour Government - have finally laid to rest your hunting with hounds by classing it as an illegal pursuit."
Wow !! Are you a member of the labour government ?
If you are i have a couple questions for you.
Wow !! Are you a member of the labour government ?
If you are i have a couple questions for you.
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
I have to say that threats of informing those who need to know does strike me as threating confrontation!
You have also said that you only observe hunts, therefore i assumed from that, that you did not confront people, sorry my mistake, you obvously relish spoiling peoples enjoyment of an activity.
I wouldnt purposely use my horse as a weapon either, for a start ive had it land on me and i wouldnt wish 750kg of thrashing horse on anyone, secondly ive heard enough stories of antis harming the hunts animals not to want any of them near enough my horse for me to use it as a weapon!
You have also said that you only observe hunts, therefore i assumed from that, that you did not confront people, sorry my mistake, you obvously relish spoiling peoples enjoyment of an activity.
I wouldnt purposely use my horse as a weapon either, for a start ive had it land on me and i wouldnt wish 750kg of thrashing horse on anyone, secondly ive heard enough stories of antis harming the hunts animals not to want any of them near enough my horse for me to use it as a weapon!
Blairite
Well-Known Member
<<Wow !! Are you a member of the labour government ?
If you are i have a couple questions for you.>>
Fire away, Wurzel old bean.
Regards
Lord_Blairite
P.S. That doesn't mean I am confirming being a part of the Government and anything I say is purely my own opinion!
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"you obvously relish spoiling peoples enjoyment of an activity."
I dont relish it but if it save an animals life I will continue doing it.
"stories of antis harming the hunts animals"
Anti's that threaten or hurt any hunt animals are as bad as the hunters,I will attempt to stop ANY harm coming to animals, any that hurt or threaten hunters are as bad as the hunters that hurt and threaten anti's
I dont relish it but if it save an animals life I will continue doing it.
"stories of antis harming the hunts animals"
Anti's that threaten or hurt any hunt animals are as bad as the hunters,I will attempt to stop ANY harm coming to animals, any that hurt or threaten hunters are as bad as the hunters that hurt and threaten anti's
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
I dont see how coming on to a forum to makes threats is going to save an animals life!
Foxes will not stop being killed purely because they cannot be killed by a pack of hounds. Instead they will be kill in much less accurate ways. At least if a fox is caught by a pack of hounds, it is dead, if it escapes it is survival of the fittest.
I applaude you for at least standing by you convictions and being a vegan.
Do you not consider humans to be animals? As many children hunt, do you not consider how frightened they may become at the site of antis (whether threatening them or not). You have already stated that you would use force, to whom does this apply? At what age does it become acceptable for you to strike a person, and how can you judge the age of a person if their face is obscured by a riding hat. In my opinion by resorting to force you are as bad as any anti that injures an animal.
Foxes will not stop being killed purely because they cannot be killed by a pack of hounds. Instead they will be kill in much less accurate ways. At least if a fox is caught by a pack of hounds, it is dead, if it escapes it is survival of the fittest.
I applaude you for at least standing by you convictions and being a vegan.
Do you not consider humans to be animals? As many children hunt, do you not consider how frightened they may become at the site of antis (whether threatening them or not). You have already stated that you would use force, to whom does this apply? At what age does it become acceptable for you to strike a person, and how can you judge the age of a person if their face is obscured by a riding hat. In my opinion by resorting to force you are as bad as any anti that injures an animal.
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"to makes threats"
I dont threaten people.
"You have already stated that you would use force, to whom does this apply?"
I would use force only to stop an assault on myself or others.
"At what age does it become acceptable for you to strike a person."
I will defend myself and other against anyone, no matter the age if they are posing a threat to me but I would use reasonable force (as stated in other posts)
I have posted on different threads about the ideals and nessessety (excuse my spelling if wrong) of killing or "controling" wild animals so I dont feel I need to repeat myself
I dont threaten people.
"You have already stated that you would use force, to whom does this apply?"
I would use force only to stop an assault on myself or others.
"At what age does it become acceptable for you to strike a person."
I will defend myself and other against anyone, no matter the age if they are posing a threat to me but I would use reasonable force (as stated in other posts)
I have posted on different threads about the ideals and nessessety (excuse my spelling if wrong) of killing or "controling" wild animals so I dont feel I need to repeat myself
soggy
Well-Known Member
Blairite you have never been any where near my cheek, facial of posteriorl. Just cos thats your choice of employment within the ministry does not mean that the rest of the general population considers it as being acceptable.
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
"Tom, I've said this to others who brag about breaking the law, if you're not worried about it, send me your name, address and when you're planning to do it and I will do my best to get down and help the police with thier enquiries"
Sorry I saw this as threatening.
"I will defend myself and other against anyone, no matter the age if they are posing a threat to me but I would use reasonable force (as stated in other posts)"
So a five year old strikes you with their whip because they know no better and you feel it necessary to use force on the child in order to "defend yourself".
And I apologise for not wasting my time trying to find your other posts, however there will always be people who feel it necessary to control wild animals, and will just find ways of doing it outside the law. So by coming on to this forum and making what i believe to be threats you are not saving any animals and will not change the established opinions of many long serving hunt followers.
Sorry I saw this as threatening.
"I will defend myself and other against anyone, no matter the age if they are posing a threat to me but I would use reasonable force (as stated in other posts)"
So a five year old strikes you with their whip because they know no better and you feel it necessary to use force on the child in order to "defend yourself".
And I apologise for not wasting my time trying to find your other posts, however there will always be people who feel it necessary to control wild animals, and will just find ways of doing it outside the law. So by coming on to this forum and making what i believe to be threats you are not saving any animals and will not change the established opinions of many long serving hunt followers.
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"Sorry I saw this as threatening"
Nothing threating about it, I would video the event and pass it on.
"So a five year old strikes you with their whip because they know no better and you feel it necessary to use force on the child in order to "defend yourself"."
I would take the whip off them, I doubt there would be any need to use pressure points or holds. If a 5yr old did do that then I would expect they learne dit off either a parent or another adult they were close to, not the best example to set.
"making what i believe to be threats"
Once again, I do not threaten ppl
Nothing threating about it, I would video the event and pass it on.
"So a five year old strikes you with their whip because they know no better and you feel it necessary to use force on the child in order to "defend yourself"."
I would take the whip off them, I doubt there would be any need to use pressure points or holds. If a 5yr old did do that then I would expect they learne dit off either a parent or another adult they were close to, not the best example to set.
"making what i believe to be threats"
Once again, I do not threaten ppl
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
I stated that i believed them to be threatening, that may not have been your intention.
I would consider removing the whip of a five year old child extremly threatening, the child would have a pretty tight hold on the whip, may even have their wrist in a loop, you would intimidate them and possibly cause them to fall off as you snatched at the whip.
Whatever you did to them i would deem it unecessary, i would also presume their parent(s) would feel the same. Not all children learn from example, they may have felt threatened and lashed out. You cannot rationalise any form of violence or force as you prefer to call it. Especially towards a child.
You have no knowledge of the people that you would use force on, what if someone was hunting with an injury, you would not know how much "force" they could withstand.
I would consider removing the whip of a five year old child extremly threatening, the child would have a pretty tight hold on the whip, may even have their wrist in a loop, you would intimidate them and possibly cause them to fall off as you snatched at the whip.
Whatever you did to them i would deem it unecessary, i would also presume their parent(s) would feel the same. Not all children learn from example, they may have felt threatened and lashed out. You cannot rationalise any form of violence or force as you prefer to call it. Especially towards a child.
You have no knowledge of the people that you would use force on, what if someone was hunting with an injury, you would not know how much "force" they could withstand.
wrighty
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but now you're talking s***e, you're saying a lot of "whats" and "ifs."
What if they were young, what if they were injured, what if they had a broken leg, what if they had a shotgun.
In my experience it is very unlikely that a 5yr old would attack an adult with a whip, threatened or not.
Every situation needs to be dealt with on its own merit and these actions would need to be assesed at the time, you are just throwing different things into the pot to hear something that you think you want to hear.
You want someone to say they would hit a child if threatened, you want to hear that force would be used against someone who didn't need forced used against them, you won't hear that from me, what you will hear is (once again) I will defend myself, within the law, if it is needed against anyone that poses a threat to me or others, that does not mean someone that just threatens, it has to be a direct threat. (yes, before you say, there is a difference)
What if they were young, what if they were injured, what if they had a broken leg, what if they had a shotgun.
In my experience it is very unlikely that a 5yr old would attack an adult with a whip, threatened or not.
Every situation needs to be dealt with on its own merit and these actions would need to be assesed at the time, you are just throwing different things into the pot to hear something that you think you want to hear.
You want someone to say they would hit a child if threatened, you want to hear that force would be used against someone who didn't need forced used against them, you won't hear that from me, what you will hear is (once again) I will defend myself, within the law, if it is needed against anyone that poses a threat to me or others, that does not mean someone that just threatens, it has to be a direct threat. (yes, before you say, there is a difference)
Blairite
Well-Known Member
<<I would consider removing the whip of a five year old child extremly threatening,>>
PMSL!!!!!!!! Are you serious??! Presumably even the child of a hunting thug would have more respect than that. How could removing a whip from an aggressive child be deemed threatening?
<<the child would have a pretty tight hold on the whip, may even have their wrist in a loop, you would intimidate them and possibly cause them to fall off as you snatched at the whip.>>
LOLOLOL! Bloody good job too! Perhaps they will think twice next time. If this imaginary five year old is attacking an adult stranger, imagine what they will be doing aged 15. If such an attack was perpetrated at school the teacher/member of staff would have power of restraint. Would you consider that threatening?!!!
<<Whatever you did to them i would deem it unecessary>>
Well there is the answer. I take it you don't have children? Never were one and hopefully never hope to have any?
<<i would also presume their parent(s) would feel the same.>>
If parents allowed/encouraged such an attack they face the risk of Social Service involvement and the removal of their child(ren)
<<Not all children learn from example, they may have felt threatened and lashed out.>>
FFS! LOLOLOL! You should start writing a column for the Guardian!
<<You cannot rationalise any form of violence or force as you prefer to call it. Especially towards a child.>>
No violence was called for by anyone from what I read. Wrighty proposed (in your imaginary scenarios) to use restraint/reasonable force to defend himself and put an end to the violence.
<<You have no knowledge of the people that you would use force on>>
Who gives a flying ****! I am not supporting anyone being attacked, but if someone/anyone attacked you, would you just stand there and crumple to the floor??!
<<what if someone was hunting with an injury, you would not know how much "force" they could withstand.>>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This just gets better. Hang on, Beedles about - come on out you fat twat - I know your hiding in here somewhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lord_Blairite
PMSL!!!!!!!! Are you serious??! Presumably even the child of a hunting thug would have more respect than that. How could removing a whip from an aggressive child be deemed threatening?
<<the child would have a pretty tight hold on the whip, may even have their wrist in a loop, you would intimidate them and possibly cause them to fall off as you snatched at the whip.>>
LOLOLOL! Bloody good job too! Perhaps they will think twice next time. If this imaginary five year old is attacking an adult stranger, imagine what they will be doing aged 15. If such an attack was perpetrated at school the teacher/member of staff would have power of restraint. Would you consider that threatening?!!!
<<Whatever you did to them i would deem it unecessary>>
Well there is the answer. I take it you don't have children? Never were one and hopefully never hope to have any?
<<i would also presume their parent(s) would feel the same.>>
If parents allowed/encouraged such an attack they face the risk of Social Service involvement and the removal of their child(ren)
<<Not all children learn from example, they may have felt threatened and lashed out.>>
FFS! LOLOLOL! You should start writing a column for the Guardian!
<<You cannot rationalise any form of violence or force as you prefer to call it. Especially towards a child.>>
No violence was called for by anyone from what I read. Wrighty proposed (in your imaginary scenarios) to use restraint/reasonable force to defend himself and put an end to the violence.
<<You have no knowledge of the people that you would use force on>>
Who gives a flying ****! I am not supporting anyone being attacked, but if someone/anyone attacked you, would you just stand there and crumple to the floor??!
<<what if someone was hunting with an injury, you would not know how much "force" they could withstand.>>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This just gets better. Hang on, Beedles about - come on out you fat twat - I know your hiding in here somewhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lord_Blairite
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"P.S. That doesn't mean I am confirming being a part of the Government and anything I say is purely my own opinion! "
Sorry. I thought you said.....
"Its not my fault that we - the Labour Government - have finally laid to rest your hunting with hounds by classing it as an illegal pursuit. "
So are you a member of the government or not?
Or have we seen another little lie from Blairite ?
Always a little problem with the truth.
Anyway questions...
1. Have you ever been hunting ?
2. What did Margaret Beckett do to get promoted ?
3. Do you think farming should exist in this country ?
4. Why do you think meetings between the BDS and LACS concerning Baronsdown have unpublished minutes. ?
5. Do you think in general we should spy on our neighbours ?
6. Do you think there should be more tax on agricultural land.?
7. Do you think the Queen is an admirable head of state for this country ?
Sorry. I thought you said.....
"Its not my fault that we - the Labour Government - have finally laid to rest your hunting with hounds by classing it as an illegal pursuit. "
So are you a member of the government or not?
Or have we seen another little lie from Blairite ?
Always a little problem with the truth.
Anyway questions...
1. Have you ever been hunting ?
2. What did Margaret Beckett do to get promoted ?
3. Do you think farming should exist in this country ?
4. Why do you think meetings between the BDS and LACS concerning Baronsdown have unpublished minutes. ?
5. Do you think in general we should spy on our neighbours ?
6. Do you think there should be more tax on agricultural land.?
7. Do you think the Queen is an admirable head of state for this country ?
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
In that case, get yourself up to the Ledbury... That mad hatter that insists on being outside the Feathers EVERY Boxing day always kicks ponies up the bum and rattles a tambourine in their faces, one year she even put pins down for the hounds...such an animals lover.
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
LB, children should NEVER be involved, on either side. Of course an adult (lets face it, you guys are so ashamed you're always hidden behind balaclavas) taking a crop away from a child is very frightening for them. It is also sad that you find it acceptable to pick on a child. Too scared to face upto someone your own size obviously.
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
Now I'd try and think of a witty reply but whatever I wrote you'd just come back with one better...
Must have been too much cider
southgate1975
Well-Known Member
Mighta needed summat stronger than cider...