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

[Fiagai]

...And what I think is that a few of you are a gift to the anti-hunt campaign! ... I just hope that some of you stay out of the way!

JG I appreciate that you truely believe in the efficiacy of your and others methods however assigning those with counter arguements or ideas to the anti-hunt brigade is effectively dismissing those with whom you do not agree. The old "you are siding with the enemy if you think otherwise" would appear
to be same tactic that CC accused OPs who use the word "Troll"

However I have failed to find the word troll used anyhere in this thread to date...however it would appear to have been more than a couple of references of sleeping with the enemy....

 

[EAST KENT]

Honestly I do wonder what planet a few of you are on;look around,beyond your own little world,look where the voters of this country live..go there..and then remove those rose coloured spectacles.
Continue with your form of "hunting",whatever you can get away with, but for once face up to the fact that the voting populace (and yes some of them should`nt be allowed to vote!) It is highly unlikely a conservative way will be voted in with any workable majority.
It is a great pity,but there it is, if you had`nt noticed the lowest common denominator rules these days.Far better to enjoy what you can hang on to than be abusive to those of us who have our eyes and ears peeled ;if I want to remove those futile expenses in my life by curtailing a CA subscription,that is my choice. If you want to continue the "fight",that is yours` ,but I never did believe in expending energy and time on lost causes.
Enjoy your "hunting",but for a lot of us with the main player removed it is pointless.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

this arguement is going nowhere so i think its time to put up,or shut up .

 

[rosie fronfelen]

I didnt say i'd given up hope,never ever,thats not my way,especially as i'm ona one way road but as i said before, you can't educate lard, and there'sloads of lard out there---

 

[rosie fronfelen]

EAST KENT - don't you see a slight contradiction between your pathetic little lecture aimed at Herne - and your own rudeness and aggression. I have NO idea who you are - or what you have actually DONE in terms of real support for hunting. I know who Herne is - and combat_claire too - and if all of you had done a tenth of the excellent PR work those two have done since well before the ban, there might not have been one!

There is nothing 'reasonable minded' about some of your contributions to this forum - and there are a few others who could join you on the 'silly step'!

Any intelligent anti (and thankfully there aren't many) would take great encouragement from some of the stupidity illustrated on this forum!!

there are many more antis out there thanwhat you think JG and being rude to hunters is not the way to go,everyone has their own opinions remember---

 

[combat_claire]

Putting forward an arguement is to be welcomed, insulting and attacking ops is not...

My objection is that in numerous threads across this board you ands your posse have failed to follow this advice.

We have multiple incidents of your gang being insulting and rude to posters who hold opposing views, branding them as trolls and making idiotic comments. I have said time and time again that this is a ridiculous strategy. It is perfectly possible to debate the issues at hand without resorting to such childish behaviour. That i is no way to win hearts and minds in this argument. All it does is succeed in portraying to the casual browser of hunting forums via Google that hunting folk are as rude and as arrogant as the League Against Cruel Sports portray us.

It would appear that it is allowable for your group to be rude about Herne implying that he is thick and bitter, but the moment he politely defends himself or presents a contrary view you all start whinging that he is being rude to you.

Tiresome in the extreme. I vote that JG resurrects the Hounds Discussion boards where at least decent quality debate thrived :-D

 

[combat_claire]

there are many more antis out there thanwhat you think JG and being rude to hunters is not the way to go,everyone has their own opinions remember---

I still cannot see anywhere on this thread or indeed the whole board where Herne has been anything other than resolutely polite sometimes in the case of extreme provocation. He is also willing to help out with other hunting questions posed on the forum. Conversely your little group has posted in no uncertain terms that he is stupid, grumpy and bitter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This dispute is tiresome in the extreme and paints an extremely bad picture of hunting folk. Much like some of the snide and rude posts that your little group have made aimed at anti-hunting supporters who dare to hold an opposing view.

 

[combat_claire]

It is highly unlikely a conservative way will be voted in with any workable majority.

I beg to differ. The West Lothian question is already in the process of being looked at by a committee with a view to resolving it once and for all. Preventing the MSPs from voting on matters that only affect English people will be an excellent first step towards achieving a majority for the pro-hunting cause.

You also forget the valuable work being undertaken by Vote Okay across the UK. In 2005 election the Fitzwilliam and other hunts in the Midlands helped to remove 3 anti-hunting MPs and left the other sitting on such a slim majority that he was given the boot easily in 2010. 29 anti-hunting MPs were removed in 2005. The successes carried on in 2010 with more pro-hunting MPs being installed across the UK. If everyone pulls together and puts in the hours then there is no reason why a Conservative majority shouldn't be possible at the next election. Evening up the electoral boundaries should help too...

 

[rosie fronfelen]

I still cannot see anywhere on this thread or indeed the whole board where Herne has been anything other than resolutely polite sometimes in the case of extreme provocation. He is also willing to help out with other hunting questions posed on the forum. Conversely your little group has posted in no uncertain terms that he is stupid, grumpy and bitter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This dispute is tiresome in the extreme and paints an extremely bad picture of hunting folk. Much like some of the snide and rude posts that your little group have made aimed at anti-hunting supporters who dare to hold an opposing view.

come on,Claire,you know me betterthan that,we shouldall unite insteadof falling out which in this case,is pathetic.i DO NOT BELONG TO ANY LITTLE GROUP, I AM MY OWN PERSON......so lets get over ourselves and behave like adults?

 

[combat_claire]

come on,Claire,you know me betterthan that,we shouldall unite insteadof falling out which in this case,is pathetic.i DO NOT BELONG TO ANY LITTLE GROUP, I AM MY OWN PERSON......so lets get over ourselves and behave like adults?

I thought I did, despite never having met you but recent postings have made me doubt my initial opinion of you. I am afraid that much like Mr Darcy my good opinion once lost is lost forever. When push comes to shove I will stick by and defend someone who I like and respect from unfair and unjustified online attacks by people who seem to have nothing better to do with their time.

I have been advocating a united and mature front from the outset. The only pathetic thing about this thread has been the childish attacks on Herne. Clearly certain posters on this forum have no sense of irony and need to man up if they think that anything Herne has written in recent weeks is insulting.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Enjoy your "hunting",but for a lot of us with the main player removed it is pointless.

So for you the fox is the main player?? Personally, for me - it's hounds, be they foxhounds, or bassets, beagles, minkhounds or bloodhounds! WONDERFUL canines - all of them - and if hunting has to continue under the ban to keep these lines going, so be it. We all know what the alternative would have to be!

there are many more antis out there thanwhat you think JG and being rude to hunters is not the way to go,everyone has their own opinions remember---

There is a clear majority of the population who would say they were anti if asked - but the vast majorityy of them wouldn't cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition. To quote a radio presenter who interviewed me once (in a very balanced way!) "Yes, I think it's cruel - but I really don't care much!"

When I talk about 'antis' I refer to people actively involved in the campaign against hunting - either as members of an organisation - or in a more active sense. I doubt there are more than 10,000 of those in the country - which is why any anti-hunt demo/march is always a damp squib!

And sorry - if a hunter is a total ****, I reserve the right to say so!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

fair enough CC,we beg to differ---

 

[Fiagai]

My objection is that in numerous threads across this board you ands your posse have failed to follow this advice.

CC At risk of repeating myself the use of the terms "Posse" "Gangs" etc is counter productive to any discussion. We are talking about this thread so please do not attempt to divert the issue away from what is being rereffed to here. It is neither polite or helpful.

We have multiple incidents of your gang being insulting and rude to posters who hold opposing views, branding them as trolls and making idiotic comments. I have said time and time again that this is a ridiculous strategy. It is perfectly possible to debate the issues at hand without resorting to such childish behaviour. That i is no way to win hearts and minds in this argument. All it does is succeed in portraying to the casual browser of hunting forums via Google that hunting folk are as rude and as arrogant as the League Against Cruel Sports portray us.

CC Who is "We" and once again the use of the term "Gang". This silly accusation could easily thrown back, but I would not bother as this simply a nasty piece of diatribe aimed at ops with other views.

Believe it or not there have been a number of (for want of a better term) genuine! "Trolls" who came, tried to rubbish hunting and left never to be seen again. Quite rightly these posters were outed. In this thread there has been no use of the term troll except by yourself to insult other posters.

The continued accusation of genuine posters certainly will not endear this forum to anyone but DO NOT asattempt to assign the responsibility to those with different views and align them to the anti hunt brigade as you have already done

It would appear that it is allowable for your group to be rude about Herne implying that he is thick and bitter, but the moment he politely defends himself or presents a contrary view you all start whinging that he is being rude to you.

Ok there you go again - I for one am NOT part of any "Group" "Gang" "Posse" whatever way you wish to put it. Attacking genuine posters is not the way to discuss any matter. Reading these posts this is the most obvious method for attempting to attack those who post contary views. Yes I may not agree with you but I will not start making ridicoulous comparisions or questioning your alliances.

Tiresome in the extreme. I vote that JG resurrects the Hounds Discussion boards where at least decent quality debate thrived :-D

The inclusion of a smily face doesnt make your defence of the indefensible any more acceptable btw....

 

[Judgemental]

I'm not one of these "armchair generals" who pontificate about how “everything is fine as it is”, safe in the knowledge that it will never be them in the dock. I am one of the people who actually has to wonder, every time they see a police car coming down the road, whether it is on the way to break down my door on some trumped up Hunting Act charge for something that happened over 5 months ago.

Goodness me I have been away in the Great Wen since last Friday and there is no let up in this debate, indeed it has become quite charged, one way and another.

However Herne from your own words above, it is clear Section 8 of the Hunting Act needs to be amended.

If Section 8 did not exist you would need have no worries.

I see that in my absence you have called me a 'babbler'. I think you need to apologise - nicely please.

For those who are unfamiliar with the expression The Great Wen, it comes from the following, which in the context of this debate is wholly relevant:

'Wen' in old English was considered similar to the word 'boil' - a festering heap of corruption.

London in the Eighteenth Century Georgian period was expanding rapidly, especially in the new Western neighbourhoods. However, not everyone appreciated this spread of urbanization. The author Daniel Defoe (1661-1731) called London "the monstrous city". Josiah Tucker (1713-1799), an economist and political writer, wrote that London was "no better than a wen".

Finally, the radical journalist and politician William Cobbett (1763-1835), himself a critic of industrialization, adapted the phrase. In 'Rural Rides' (1830), he wrote: "But, what is to be the fate of the great wen of all? The monster, called, by the silly coxcombs of the press, 'the metropolis of the empire?'"

 

[Fiagai]

Goodness me I have been away in the Great Wen since last Friday and there is no let up in this debate, indeed it has become quite charged, one way and another.
"

LOL

Dont think you are getting away that easy JM! look what you have done you trouble causing gang troll anti you! (to use some common parlance!) and yes I am taking the proverbial....

Love the reference to the Great Wen btw....

 

[Herne]

However Herne from your own words above, it is clear Section 8 of the Hunting Act needs to be amended.

If Section 8 did not exist you would need have no worries.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhh!!!!

JM, please, please, please try to learn something from this whole debate. Anything would do at this rate…

Section 8 is [size=+1]COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT[/size] to what I said above. (I am running out of different forms of emphasis, here&#8230

Section 8 clearly excludes dwelling houses, so if they were coming to bash down my door as I said, they would not be using Section 8, they would be coming with a warrant – so amending Section 8 would make no difference.

Yet again, you are wrong.

Are you ever going to accept that you are out-of-your-depth in this conversation? Are you ever going to acknowledge the fact that you were wrong about Statutory Instruments – or indeed about any of the other things that you have been wrong about in this thread?

I see that in my absence you have called me a 'babbler'. I think you need to apologise - nicely please.

Do you know, I really don’t think that I do need to at all at the moment. If I had said something incorrect or defamatory, then I would – but, as explained above, you are indeed “babbling” in the true hunting sense of the word. You are speaking on a false line.

I am slightly bemused by this thread. What exactly do you expect people to do when you make factually incorrect statements? Ignore them or point them out to you? Or do you deny your own fallibility?

For those who are unfamiliar with the expression The Great Wen, it comes from the following, which in the context of this debate is wholly relevant:

'Wen' in old English was considered similar to the word 'boil' - a festering heap of corruption.

London in the Eighteenth Century Georgian period was expanding rapidly, especially in the new Western neighbourhoods. However, not everyone appreciated this spread of urbanization. The author Daniel Defoe (1661-1731) called London "the monstrous city". Josiah Tucker (1713-1799), an economist and political writer, wrote that London was "no better than a wen".

Finally, the radical journalist and politician William Cobbett (1763-1835), himself a critic of industrialization, adapted the phrase. In 'Rural Rides' (1830), he wrote: "But, what is to be the fate of the great wen of all? The monster, called, by the silly coxcombs of the press, 'the metropolis of the empire?'"

Yes, this display of erudition might, of course, be thought to be slightly more impressive if it had not been quoted verbatim from “answers.com”.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_London_called_the_Great_Wen

However, either way, I am curious to know what relevance you think it has to the debate so far..?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhh!!!!

Aw Jez, Herne. You are a hero.
(Didn't want to interrupt the flow of the thread, will toddle off again now.)

 

[Judgemental]

I am curious to know what relevance you think it has to the debate so far..?

A festering boil.

As for what I am saying, I am merely expressing my opinion and you are being extremely impolite to me and hostile because you do not agree with my views.

An apology please

 

[oakash]

Clearly it is a case of a dawn duel. May I offer my services as a 'second'? I do trust that the chosen weapons will be epees- its so much more satisfying to look 'em in the eye as you run them through. Don't know exactly how the argument started, but Cobbett's criticism of the Great Wen is as relevant today as it was when written, with the added point that it seems no longer an English or even British city. He referred to it as being peopled with 'tax eaters', and that still, certainly, applies!

 

[Herne]

A festering boil.

As for what I am saying, I am merely expressing my opinion and you are being extremely impolite to me and hostile because you do not agree with my views.

An apology please

Judgemental, pointing out that you are factually incorrect is neither impolite, nor hostile, and merits no apology.

If we were disagreeing in some deep, philosophical, discussion of some hypothetical, esoteric theory that was pure conjecture on both of our parts, then yes, my posts might be out of order.

But we are not. We are talking about verifiable facts, here. And you are wrong. It is as plain and simple as that.

We are not disagreeing about a matter of opinion, where anyone’s opinion is equally valid, such as whether the background colour of the Countryside Alliance logo would be best red or blue?

We are discussing points of Law here, where there can be definitive right and wrong answers – and your “opinion” has been as demonstrably wrong as it would have been if your “opinion” was that 2 + 2 = 5.

You have misunderstood the wording and the meaning of the Hunting Act 2004, you have misunderstood the function, process and application of Statutory Instruments and you do not understand how parliamentary process works with regard to amending legislation, nor the realities of the current political make-up of the Government.

But the main problem is that when these verifiable matters are pointed out to you (by more people than just me), you simply ignore it and go on making incorrect statements that could mislead people on an important subject.

If that causes frustration, it is hardly suprising.

You do, of course, have every opportunity to defend your case. You could, if it were the case, demonstrate that it was I who had got the Law wrong. In such a case, then it would be my turn to concede that you were not “babbling”.

That would be the appropriate action on your behalf here. That – or admit that you were wrong and move on.

This complaining that I have been impolite or insulting to you is just silly. Either give it up, or refer to specific instances.

 

[Herne]

Clearly it is a case of a dawn duel. May I offer my services as a 'second'? I do trust that the chosen weapons will be epees- its so much more satisfying to look 'em in the eye as you run them through. Don't know exactly how the argument started, but Cobbett's criticism of the Great Wen is as relevant today as it was when written, with the added point that it seems no longer an English or even British city. He referred to it as being peopled with 'tax eaters', and that still, certainly, applies!

Personally, I prefer unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, but if it were to be swords, sabre would be my weapon of choice.

Cobbett's criticism of London as a great Wen may still be relevant to London today, but I am still unsure of it's relevance to this debate.

JM appears to be implying that someone or something in this argument is "a festering boil" - but I am not sure what as yet...?

Obviously he can't be referring to me, as he abhors personal insults and would never stoop so low - and of course, East Kent and Fiagai, being the tireless arbiters of fair play that they are, would be down on him like a ton of bricks were he do such a thing.

I await the explanation with bated breath...

 

[VoR]

I listened to this twice and thought it was really interesting that both sides had a discussion with both sides able to make their point and without really losing their tempers and ranting!!

 

[Herne]

In this thread there has been no use of the term troll except by yourself to insult other posters.

Fiagai. I challenge you to demonstrate, using the excellent quoting facilities offered by this forum, where in this thread Combat_Claire has used the word "troll" to insult another poster?

but DO NOT asattempt to assign the responsibility to those with different views and align them to the anti hunt brigade as you have already done

Again, I challenge you to demonstrate where in this thread, Combat_Clare, or anyone else, has aligned people to the anti-hunt brigade.

What has been said is that the anti-hunt brigade would be pleased to read some of the opinions posted here by pro-hunting people, but that is not the same as saying that those people are deliberately allied with, siding with or aligned with the Antis.

there have been a number of (for want of a better term) genuine! "Trolls" who came, tried to rubbish hunting and left never to be seen again. Quite rightly these posters were outed.

Sorry? Who appointed you, or anyone else, to be arbiter of whether someone who does not agree with hunting on here is a genuine anti who is entitled to express their opinion on a Public Forum or a “Troll” who needs to be “outed”?


Finally, and this is just a matter of self-education, you refer from time to time to posters as OPs?. I am familiar with the abbreviation meaning Original Poster, as in the poster who started that particular thread, but you seem to be using it in a slightly different context, and I was wondering what it was?

 

[Judgemental]

“babbling”.

move on.

This complaining that I have been impolite or insulting to you is just silly. Either give it up, or refer to specific instances.

Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

I feel that I have been attacked in a personal manner.

 

[VoR]

Ok, so I've read this all the way through (work is slow today), seems to me that;

A repeal or any other change to the act is improbable/impossible at the moment, the only way it WILL change is a majority Conservative government at the next election, assuming they are still in agreement that a repeal is part of their political agenda.

Having read the act, any changes would need to be agree by both Houses, if a change basically castrating the act would go through then surely we'd looking at a world where repeal had happened?

Even if a change to the act were possible, it is short-sighted to suggest that this should be a priority, look around you, this country and the world could melt-down financially at any time, surely a bit higher on the priority list at the moment that this be avoided (if possible)?

I do agree that perhaps all pro-hunting groups should be keeping the fight 'in the limelight' more and I do find it very disturbing and saddening that we all want the same thing but are now in-fighting, are we dividing ourselves which will allow the other side to conquer? I hope not.

 

[EAST KENT]

come on,Claire,you know me betterthan that,we shouldall unite insteadof falling out which in this case,is pathetic.i DO NOT BELONG TO ANY LITTLE GROUP, I AM MY OWN PERSON......so lets get over ourselves and behave like adults?

Absolutely, rose coloured specs off,which apparently is a hanging offence.

 

[EAST KENT]

A festering boil.

As for what I am saying, I am merely expressing my opinion and you are being extremely impolite to me and hostile because you do not agree with my views.

An apology please

Absobloodylutely, disgraceful.

 

[EAST KENT]

So for you the fox is the main player?? Personally, for me - it's hounds, be they foxhounds, or bassets, beagles, minkhounds or bloodhounds! WONDERFUL canines - all of them - and if hunting has to continue under the ban to keep these lines going, so be it. We all know what the alternative would have to be!


Of course the fox and it`s wily ways are the main player;By all means keep those precious lines going in the meantime, by whatever means can be got away with;however ,just because I cannot quite get very excited about chasing a duster,I DO NOT deserve abuse for it.
You have no need to tell me about hounds,I have walked many ,many couples,reared from day old ,you name it.To turn on huntings own just for a less rose coloured viewpoint is childish and ridiculous,you all need to extract yourselves from that sunless viewpoint and stop antagonising the hunting folk around as well as the antis.
As for Herne,well You could even turn ME into an anti..well ,well done. And be big enough to apologise to JM,he used to irratate the Hell out of me,but now I`m quite fond of the old stick. I sincerely hope I am never so unfortunate as to meet you H.
I never thought to actually see hunting people being so rude,part of the joys of it was always the politeness and etiquette,long gone it seems.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

I find it very sad that all this in-fighting is causing rifts when everyone is batting for the same side-there are no posses,trolls or whatever schoolyard names have been used and although ive been accused of being unpleasant on this forum ive never abused anybody,so thank you everyone who disagrees----------

 

[EAST KENT]

I find it very sad that all this in-fighting is causing rifts when everyone is batting for the same side-there are no posses,trolls or whatever schoolyard names have been used and although ive been accused of being unpleasant on this forum ive never abused anybody,so thank you everyone who disagrees----------

Completely agree Rosie, my interest in any hunting has just died,well done the lot of you.