THE REUNION – BBC Radio 4, Sunday 4th September at 11.15am

[rosie fronfelen]

I have to agree with you Claire,i considered packing up the CA cos of the expense but being a huntmans wife,albeit knackered, i felt it not the right thing to do,, also theRSPB do very well out of me virtually every 3weeks.

 

[gonebananas]

Out of interest have either of you taken the effort to serve on a County Committee and have your voice heard? Have you offered the benefit of your experience to the Alliance? Do you bother to attend the AGM, stand for election to the national committee or even fill in your voting papers?

It is so easy to sit back and criticise the work of an organisation be that a Hunt Supporters' committee, the mastership or a lobbying group but a hell of a lot harder to get up off your backside and actually attempt to change something.

The battlefield has changed since the days of the BFSS and the Countryside Alliance has adapted to meet those changes. You might think that post offices, rural planning or village broadband are not as important as hunting and field sports but the CA also has to be an all round rural organisation representing the concerns of the wider rural community as well as those who hunt, shoot and fish if it is to survive.

You may feel that the work of the Countryside Alliance Foundation is 'fluffy' but if we do not address the outdoor education of youngsters today then where will be the field sports participants of the future?

You may feel the 'game to eat' promotion is 'fluffy' but by taking game chefs and introducing those who do not shoot to the delicious and easy recipes that you can cook with game opens up a whole new world to those who have never experienced rural life.

You may also brand the 'Rural Retailer' awards as 'fluffy' but who else is going to promote and shout about the excellent businesses that can be found in the thriving modern rural economy.

If you are dead set on leaving the CA then nothing I will say will ever change your mind, but remember that every person who abandons the organisation leaves it weaker by one voice. As the RSPB & National Trust have already discovered it is numbers of members that give power when lobbying in high places.

LIKE!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Quite, when a member of this forum ran the show - Janet George and what a good show it was too. One knew exactly what the BFSS stood for and they were heard by the rank and file. Or as you refer East Kent "normal people".

Oh dear - I didn't RUN the show - I just talked a lot! I WAS an Area PRO for the BFSS before Robin Hanbury-Tennison, but it was Robin who brought me to London to head the PR team! Robin was the BEST thing that ever happened to the BFSS - for 3 years it was an EFFECTIVE campaigning organisation!

I agree that the change to the Countryside Alliance was - in many ways - NOT a good move. The 'new' organisation (which I dubbed 'the BFSS with wings') caused confusion as to its PRIMARY focus, and diverted resources away from the main aim - to protect all legitimate field sports!! It was a good idea in theory - but at LEAST 20 years to late to adopt that particular tactic IMHO!

But of course the biggest mistake was in the leadership! Edward Duke was a short-lived disaster, Richard Burge - well, I leave it to you! The idea of cuddling up to the Labour Government was always a bad one! I have yet to see any real action from the new incumbent!

But we HAVE to support the CA - it's all we've got - and there are still some VERY good people there. Not much can happen for now on the repeal front - the Conservatives would do it like a shot - but they don't have the numbers and they have MUCH higher priorities right now with the economy (if it gets any worse, who will be able to afford to hunt!!)

 

[EAST KENT]

Oh honestly..recipes indeed.No they will not get £60.00 off me this year;as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration.Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote.I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences,and all this prevarification is rubbish, and then of course us oh so decent hunting folk roll over and say "oh we do understand we are the least important thing to worry about" and just hope ,sometime ,they`ll honour their promise.I would`nt go evens on that one folks!
Cannot stand fluffy sidestepping from anyone,and that is what it is.How about roaring out "will you honour your manifesto or not"?Stop being so meek and trusting..are only two of us on here angry enough to bawl out the liers for the truth? Fluffy? The CA is almost as fluffy as a persian cat.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Oh honestly..recipes indeed.No they will not get £60.00 off me this year;as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration.Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote.I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences,and all this prevarification is rubbish, and then of course us oh so decent hunting folk roll over and say "oh we do understand we are the least important thing to worry about" and just hope ,sometime ,they`ll honour their promise.I would`nt go evens on that one folks!
Cannot stand fluffy sidestepping from anyone,and that is what it is.How about roaring out "will you honour your manifesto or not"?Stop being so meek and trusting..are only two of us on here angry enough to bawl out the liers for the truth? Fluffy? The CA is almost as fluffy as a persian cat.

EK,you sound very angry these days in some of your posts, any reason?hope its not personal-

 

[JanetGeorge]

as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration.Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote.I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences

You're forgetting: it was the Conservatives who pledged to repeal the ban - NOT 'the Government'!! The Government is a coalition with the LibDems who did NOT pledge to repeal - in fact only a few would vote in favour of repeal!

IF the Conservatives had won a decent majority, we would almost certainly have had repeal by now - or at least in the next 12 months. As it is, the numbers do NOT add up!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Doesn't the countryside Alliance not cover everything country, not just hunting?

 

[EAST KENT]

EK,you sound very angry these days in some of your posts, any reason?hope its not personal-

It does make me angry that with this lot (and I accept the ghastly Libdems are a problem) that we saw real hope that something I have held dear from five years old has apparently evaporated.The world has gone mad,no dog allowed to hunt,it is ridiculous.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

It does make me angry that with this lot (and I accept the ghastly Libdems are a problem) that we saw real hope that something I have held dear from five years old has apparently evaporated.The world has gone mad,no dog allowed to hunt,it is ridiculous.

I do agree but what can one do?

 

[EAST KENT]

Move to Eire or the US !

 

[Judgemental]

I do agree but what can one do?

Rosie, as I have said before, but none of the good and great will go and seriously bend the ear of the various politicians and especially the Home Secretary to the following effect:

Simply this, remove Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004, using the Statutory Instrument.

It is within the gift and power of the minister. It does not need a set piece debate in either the House of Commons or Lords. Indeed it is necessary to remove Section 8, because things have changed and the police do not have the time and resources to 'monitor' hunts.

The Act says that the Minister may use the Statutory Instrument if events and matters change, clearly the finances of the country dictate that if Parliament has more important things to do, than repeal the act completely, then it follows police forces do not have the time to police hunts.

It's a matter of a stroke of a pen.

Fundamenatally it would emasculate the act and make it wholly impotent.

I have found that the majority of MPs have never read the act and certainly do not understand the implications on the gound, in the highways, byways, fields and hunt kennels throughout this nation.

 

[EAST KENT]

Could you post the relevent Section 8 on here JM (probably for the umpteenth time)

 

[Judgemental]

Could you post the relevent Section 8 on here JM (probably for the umpteenth time)

East Kent, always delighted to oblige. The actual link is: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

However the two important sections are 8 and 14. 8) Search and Seizure, 14) the use of the Statutory Instrument. Item d) is particularly relevant so far as The Statutory Instrument is concerned, now that the police and law enforcement agencies are strapped for cash.

The problem we have, is that those who represent the cause, are not in my opinon too bright, (I could be quite colourful) when it comes to using the content of the act to effect it’s dismantling. They only seem to understand the word repeal – dismantling is too hard to comprehend!

Section 8

Search and seizure

(1)This section applies where a constable reasonably suspects that a person (“the suspect&#8221 is committing or has committed an offence under Part 1 of this Act.
(2)If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the suspect, the constable may stop the suspect and search him.
(3)If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on or in a vehicle, animal or other thing of which the suspect appears to be in possession or control, the constable may stop and search the vehicle, animal or other thing.
(4)A constable may seize and detain a vehicle, animal or other thing if he reasonably believes that—
(a)it may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for an offence under Part 1 of this Act, or
(b)it may be made the subject of an order under section 9.
(5)For the purposes of exercising a power under this section a constable may enter—
(a)land;
(b)premises other than a dwelling;
(c)a vehicle.
(6)The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant.


Section 14

Subordinate legislation

An order of the Secretary of State under this Act—

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

Many people do not understand what a Statutory Instrument is, I have therefore copied below a synopsis and a link to the House of Commons.

Statutory Instruments
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf

Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a form of
legislation which allow the provisions of an
Act of Parliament to be subsequently
brought into force or altered without
Parliament having to pass a new Act. They
are also referred to as secondary, delegated
or subordinate legislation. This Factsheet
discusses the background to SIs, the
procedural rules they must follow, and their
parliamentary scrutiny. It also looks at the
other types of delegated legislation.
This factsheet is available on the internet at:
http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets
May 2008
FS No.L7 Ed 3.9
ISSN 0144-4689
© Parliamentary Copyright
(House of Commons) 2008
May be reproduced for purposes
of private study or research
without permission.

 

[combat_claire]

The trouble is that if the matter is addressed through an SI immediately it will enable the Conservative party to put 'tick done' by the matter of the Hunting Act without actually achieving belt and braces repeal. As has been said by better informed political minds on this forum - An SI can be just as easily undone by the next administration with the stroke of a political pen.

As an amateur member of hunt staff I would rather see the job done properly; even if this means waiting a few more years for the West Lothian question to be resolved and a proper repeal with an Act that also entrenches hunting as a wildlife management tool for the future.

To summarise I would rather wait and see the gallows demolished in entirety rather than be hanged with a slightly looser noose.

 

[combat_claire]

No they will not get £60.00 off me this year;

If you can't bring yourself to join the CA; then will you consider the Union of Countrysports Workers if you are not already a member. Their sub is £15/20 per annum depending on level opted for.

 

[Judgemental]

The trouble is that if the matter is addressed through an SI immediately it will enable the Conservative party to put 'tick done' by the matter of the Hunting Act without actually achieving belt and braces repeal. That will probably be the only option and we will be told we are lucky to get anything! As an amateur member of hunt staff I would rather see the job done properly; even if this means waiting a few more years how many? for the West Lothian question to be resolved and a proper repeal with an Act that also entrenches hunting as a wildlife management tool for the future.

To summarise I would rather wait and see the gallows demolished in entirety rather than be hanged with a slightly looser noose. When?

...

 

[combat_claire]

...

I'm afraid my crystal ball got dropped over the weekend!

If a job is worth doing; then it is worth doing properly when the time is right.

 

[Judgemental]

I'm afraid my crystal ball got dropped over the weekend!

If a job is worth doing; then it is worth doing properly when the time is right.

Claire, what you are forgetting as has been most effectively put by Janet George, the current government is a COALITION.

Mr Clegg could jump ship at any time and cause a General Election and Labour could be back in power or indeed a Lib/Lab pact.

The issue of the Hunting Act 2004 is rather like that most excellent game show, Deal or No Deal hosted by Noel Edmunds - a former President of the British Horse Society.

One goes into the show with nothing and it you are not greedy you are likely to come away with something, maybe not the £250K but something is better than nothing?

Sometimes those that go the whole way come away with a substantial sum, but on avaerage those that do go the whole way come away with only a few pennies!


Better to get something out of or removed from the Hunting Act 2004 than nothing at all!

 

[Herne]

The problem we have, is that those who represent the cause, are not in my opinon too bright, (I could be quite colourful) when it comes to using the content of the act to effect it’s dismantling. They only seem to understand the word repeal – dismantling is too hard to comprehend!

I rather fear that it is you who are barking up the wrong tree.

The provisions of Section 14 do not give the Secretary of State powers to vary the whole Act at will. The provisions of Section 14 specify how an Order of the Secretary of State shall be made, where it has been enabled elsewhere in the Act.

An order of the Secretary of State is only empowered by the Act in Section 2, Subsection 2, where it enables the SoS to amend or vary a class of Exempt Hunting.

Therefore the SoS could not, as you suggest use an SI to simply repeal Section 8. That would require an amendment of the Act, which would be every bit as difficult as full repeal, if not more so.

The SoS, could, of course, in theory amend, by SI, the Exempt Hunting Clauses to allow any and every sort of Hunting to be Exempt.

However, Section 14, Subsection b, requires a draft of the SI to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and again this would be equally as difficult to get passed as a one-line repeal Bill.

Your easy fix would not work.

 

[Judgemental]

I rather fear that it is you who are barking up the wrong tree.

The provisions of Section 14 do not give the Secretary of State powers to vary the whole Act at will. The provisions of Section 14 specify how an Order of the Secretary of State shall be made, where it has been enabled elsewhere in the Act.

An order of the Secretary of State is only empowered by the Act in Section 2, Subsection 2, where it enables the SoS to amend or vary a class of Exempt Hunting.

Therefore the SoS could not, as you suggest use an SI to simply repeal Section 8. That would require an amendment of the Act, which would be every bit as difficult as full repeal, if not more so.

The SoS, could, of course, in theory amend, by SI, the Exempt Hunting Clauses to allow any and every sort of Hunting to be Exempt.

However, Section 14, Subsection b, requires a draft of the SI to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and again this would be equally as difficult to get passed as a one-line repeal Bill.

Your easy fix would not work.

Herne, there are several points to be made in response.

1. If the use of the SI is not ventured nobody will ever know, you are taking a defeatist attitude.

2. By using the SI route, you are at least bringing the issue back onto the floor of the House of Commons and giving the rank and file of hunting some hope that something is being done.

3. At the end of the day removal of Section 8 only removes the requirement of a police officer NOT to have a warrant to enter Hunt Kennels for example. All police officers should have a warrant to enter any premises.

4. There are a large number of Conservative MP's who owe their present seats to the fact hunts up and down the country constantly canvassed their supporters to vote for MPs who supported hunting.

I commend East Kent's comments earlier in this thread when she said.

"Oh honestly..recipes indeed. No they will not get £60.00 off me this year; as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration. Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote. I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences,and all this prevarification is rubbish, and then of course us oh so decent hunting folk roll over and say "oh we do understand we are the least important thing to worry about" and just hope ,sometime ,they`ll honour their promise.I would`nt go evens on that one folks!"

We are all being taken for a ride!

I confidently predict that unless the 'Government' actions the issue, many voters will simply walk away and also away from the CA.

 

[Herne]

Judgemental,

Point 1, you misunderstood the Law with regard to Statutory Instruments. No matter how wrong section 8 may be, it cannot be repealed by SI. What you suggest cannot be done because the Act does not empower it. That is not defeatism, it just is.

Point 2, regardless of how much work we all put in, we did not get a sufficient pro-hunting majority within the House of Commons to force legislation through. This applies to whether we are trying to force through a one-line Repeal Bill or a Statutory Instrument widening the definition of exempt hunting within the existing Act. Which part of that do you not understand?


And yes, you are right, people will walk away from the necessary continued struggle to achieve repeal if people like you mislead them by spreading unfounded scare stories.

 

[Judgemental]

Judgemental,

Point 1, you misunderstood the Law with regard to Statutory Instruments. No matter how wrong section 8 may be, it cannot be repealed by SI. What you suggest cannot be done because the Act does not empower it. That is not defeatism, it just is.

Point 2, regardless of how much work we all put in, we did not get a sufficient pro-hunting majority within the House of Commons to force legislation through. This applies to whether we are trying to force through a one-line Repeal Bill or a Statutory Instrument widening the definition of exempt hunting within the existing Act. Which part of that do you not understand?


And yes, you are right, people will walk away from the necessary continued struggle to achieve repeal if people like you mislead them by spreading unfounded scare stories.

Classic, absolutely classic, I have heard it all my life, ‘don't worry we know what we are doing and you must toe the party line!’

Where are we, with a full-blown ban, no prospect of repeal and not even a nugget of hope that could be kicked about on the floor of the House of Commons?

Section 8 if given the light of day on the floor of the House of Commons, would at the very least demonstrate the injustices within the Act and us mere foot soldiers, the rank file, those that turn out and vote as we are told to vote, would at least have the satisfaction that somebody in the H of C who got themselves elected on the 'hunting ticket' actually CARED.

Even those opposed to hunting can see that Section 8 and the non-requirement for a police officer to have a warrant is wrong. Entering hunt kennels is hardly a matter of national security, the only other time a police officer does not have to have magistrates warrant in his possession to enter premises.

 

[Herne]

Gordon Bennett, this is like beating one's head against a brick wall.

Listen. What I am telling you is: You have got it wrong. It can not be done like that.

They are all one syllable words. I am not sure how I can make it any plainer.

Sorry to slaughter your sacred cow and all, but Section 8 CANNOT be repealed by Statutory Instrument.

Not "Oh, we don't think it's a very good idea" or "There is not the political will to do so at this time" or "We have a better idea..."

There is no method in Law to do so. It is not legally possible. Even if every MP in the house was in favour of it. It can not be done. It is impossible.

Geddit yet?

The powers given to Ministers to carry out by SI are defined by the “Parent” or “Enabling” Act. In the case of the Hunting Act 2004, it only empowers the SoS to amend Schedule 1 and Schedule 1 alone. It does not empower the Minister to repeal any, or part of any, clauses, and therefore no Minister would, or even could, waste parliamentary time by trying to do so.

Yes, we all think Section 8 is a travesty, but the only way to address Section 8 would be to amend the Whole Act, which would require even more Parliamentary time than a one -line repeal bill

 

[JanetGeorge]

Listen. What I am telling you is: You have got it wrong. It can not be done like that.

They are all one syllable words. I am not sure how I can make it any plainer.

Sorry to slaughter your sacred cow and all, but Section 8 CANNOT be repealed by Statutory Instrument.

Sorry Judgemental - but Herne is 100% RIGHT! The CA has some very good lawyers and barristers at its call (all good hunting types!) and if there was an easy way of sorting the Hunting Act it would have been done by now!

Fact of Life 1: the Conservatives do NOT have the numbers for repeal of the Hunting Act right now! Attempting to repeal - and failing - would be FAR worse (in both political AND PR terms) than putting repeal on the back burner for now! Jumping up and down and making a scene will NOT help!

Fact of Life 2: the CA isn't perfect! But it is the ONLY organisation committed to repeal of the Hunting Act that stands a cat in hell's chance of making it happen - when the time is right! I have more (personal) reasons than most to slap down the CA! BUT I am a member - and fully support the view that if you are not, then you shouldn't be hunting!

IF hunting supporters 'walk away' - from the Conservatives - and from the CA - that would guarantee NO chance of repeal, and in fact guarantee that within a few years, the Hunting Act would be tightened up SO much that hunts could not continue to operate at all! (And probably guarantee that we'd all be so broke we couldn't AFFORD to hunt anyway!)

 

[EAST KENT]

If you can't bring yourself to join the CA; then will you consider the Union of Countrysports Workers if you are not already a member. Their sub is £15/20 per annum depending on level opted for.

`Scuse me,but I shall point out here that I have been a member for a very long time,long before the CA and it`s new fluffyness ever appeared.It is not a matter of "joining" more a matter of saving myself 60.00 on futile expense.

 

[Herne]

Oh, that is such a load of drivel.

Save the excuses, I have heard them all, and Janet has probably heard even more than me.

When it comes down to it, they all amount to a sad attempt to find someone to "blame" for the fact that everything is not as you wish it to be and to try to justify to yourself the inexcuseable saving a few quid into the bargain. It's all a bit childish, really.

"Hmm," say the MPs, "more than 400,000 people went on the Hunting March, but less than 100,000 of them are members of the CA. Well, if more than 75% of hunting supporters don't even care enough about hunting to join your organisation, why the heck should we waste our time on it."

That is the real and measurable effect of decisions like yours.

As Janet says, if you don't support the CA, you don't deserve to go hunting, so please don't waste your time, or ours, in the utterly futile attempt to try to make out that your apathy and defeatism has any form of justification. It doesn't.

 

[EAST KENT]

Hope you are`nt part of customer relations ! I have`nt bothered to "hunt" since the ban ,it is pointless, as for "deserving" to hunt,I think you are a tad barking.If ever there was any dithering, you`ve stopped that nicely,well done!

 

[Judgemental]

When the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted, the Internet was in it's infancy and Forums such as this did not exist.

It is clear we are now putting the wind up these movers, shakers and dare I say MPs.

If the House of Commons rule books in the form of Erskin May and in the latter, Barlas are consulted, it is perfectly possible for 'anomalies' to be corrected, especially that which is contained in Section 8

Oh I understand the fear, that if Section 8 is corrected and frankly I don't see why it should not be corrected, even if it takes Parliamentary time, then the notion of a wholesale repeal is dead in the water.

The opportunity as I see to ever achieve a repeal is now non-existent.

With the way things are economically and that dire situation, if the LIb/Dems jumped ship and caused a General Election the Conservatives would be wiped from the face of the political scene.

Largely because all those who voted Libdem are thoroughly ticked off that they are now in bed with the Conservatives. Thus they will likely vote Labour who will be returned to Parliament with a massive majority.

Notwithstanding all those who voted for MP's (Conservatives) whose CV's indicated they would support a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.

So the Conservatives had better go and see Mr Clegg and Mr Cable (Along with Lord Paddy Ashdown) and ask them what price to stay in power - which Libdem sacred cow would they really like to put through Parliament.

The deal being if you the LibDems support 'us' the Conservatives on Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004, we (the Conservatives) will give you anything you want on your (the LibDem) wish list.

That at least will keep the hunting rank and file, foot soldiers of the Conservative party sweet - for the time being! (who are now well informed as to their rights and remedies via forums such as this).

In my Judgement, I think the LibDems would do a deal on Section 8, if they were to achieve a serious manifesto pledge to their core vote. After all the small matter of whether or not a police officer has to have a warrant under the Hunting Act 2004, is a very small price to pay politically, for all the cherished ambitions of the LibDems.

 

[Herne]

Hope you are`nt part of customer relations ! I have`nt bothered to "hunt" since the ban ,it is pointless, as for "deserving" to hunt,I think you are a tad barking.If ever there was any dithering, you`ve stopped that nicely,well done!

Oh, so now it's my fault...

See, just as I said, you'll look for any excuse to try to hide from your own apathy and defeatism. Feeble. Utterly feeble.


And by the way, I do not and have never worked for the Countryside Alliance - although I do do my voluntary bit on the County Committee.

 

[Herne]

When the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted, the Internet was in it's infancy and Forums such as this did not exist.

Forums such as this, which was started in 2001, did not exist in 2004? Okayyyyyyyy.....

Where have you been? I was arguing the hunting debate on Compuserve back in the early nineties...

It is clear we are now putting the wind up these movers, shakers and dare I say MPs .... the hunting rank and file ... (who are now well informed as to their rights and remedies via forums such as this) ...

Dare I say that you are slightly overestimating the importance and/or influence of forums such as this, and possibly even the value of your own contributions to them?

So what's changed, we now have the Internet to communicate and this Forum in particular, where we can all exchange views and if necessary, organise another march.

It seems the players on this forum make a far greater and more voluble and valuable contribution and help to keep the cause alive?

Ok, yes, I dare say it. Time for a reality check, JM. The readership of these forums is pretty small….


As for well-informed, well, have you not just given them completely erroneous information about amending the Hunting Act by Statutory Instrument. Would it not be a good idea to correct that, if you want people to be "well-informed"? Or would admitting that you were actually wrong be a step too far...?

So the Conservatives had better go and see Mr Clegg and Mr Cable (Along with Lord Paddy Ashdown) and ask them what price to stay in power - which Libdem sacred cow would they really like to put through Parliament.

The deal being if you the LibDems support 'us' the Conservatives on Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004, we (the Conservatives) will give you anything you want on your (the LibDem) wish list.

That at least will keep the hunting rank and file, foot soldiers of the Conservative party sweet - for the time being! (who are now well informed as to their rights and remedies via forums such as this)

Oh, right, so these conservative MPs, who are already aware that 75% of hunting people can’t even be bothered to join the Countryside Alliance and are now “well-informed” by people like you and East Kent that hunting people are apparently going to be deserting in droves are still going to choose Section 8 of the Hunting Act as the reason to give the Lib-Dems whatever they want are they?

Do you even think about this stuff before you write it down?

Thank heavens your estimation of the importance of this forum is vastly over-estimated….