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

[Herne]

Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

Hardly.

You do, of course, have every opportunity to defend your case. You could … demonstrate that it was I who had got the Law wrong…That would be the appropriate action on your behalf here…. refer to specific instances.

All active invitations for you to state your opinions.

As for intimidation, nonsense - unless you are intimidated by the idea that if you post something that is factually incorrect, someone else might point it out.

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

And you have been asked – not even impolitely – on more than one occasion to refer to specific instances of these attacks and/or insults.

 

[Fiagai]

Re: gangs, trolls, antis and other absurdisms....

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?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.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?

Herne in addition to your continued rude and abrasive postings you have now taken to replying to other posters posts as well! Well done....

If you wish to argue please feel free to do so but I for one have no wish to participate in your rather obvious use of symantics and hyperbole.

I believe there is a signpost down the road, if you really need to have a rant at if you wish. So I repeat I will not partake in any of your vapid and meaningless continued arguing for the sake of arguing.

Please remember your opinions are your own and unless we bring in legal specialists or a relevant legislative authorities to make unilateral interpretations then such arguments remain at the end of the day just that - Your Opinions. It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others

You have insulted another poster and that poster has asked (and rightly so imo) for a apology. Do the decent thing and do so.


And as I have said at least once before

Herne fcs give it a break.....

 

[Herne]

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.

Several people, not just me, have already asked for instances of this so-called "rudeness" to be pointed out.

If it is so obvious and so rude and so ... whatever ... then I am at a loss to understand what the difficulty is...

It is not rude to point out to someone that they are factually in error, which is what I have been doing to JM.

 

[Herne]

So, you are unable to demonstrate that CC has said either of the things that you accuse her of, then?

Thought not.

Herne in addition to your continued rude and abrasive postings you have now taken to replying to other posters posts as well! Well done....

Erm, is that not what you are doing, intervening in the discussion between me and JM?

Is that not also the function of a public forum in general? That any poster can comment on any post?

It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others?

How on earth do you reconcile that grandiose statement with this:

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.

Do you even think about this stuff before you type it?

You have insulted another poster and that poster has asked (and rightly so imo) for a apology. Do the decent thing and do so.

And I have asked for specific details about what I should apologise for?


You have accused Combat_Claire of saying two things that she did not.

Are you going to do the “decent thing” and apologise to her?

And as I have said at least once before

Herne fcs give it a break.....

Well, yes, I was considering complaining about the persistent use of profanity, there, but I decided that it might be a bit petty.

 

[Herne]

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

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!

I know people who give up smoking less often than you give up hunting...

 

[Fiagai]

So, you are unable to demonstrate that CC has said either of the things that you accuse her of, then?.....

Still replying to other posters posts then, splicing them and taking bits out of context?

You are in effect arguing now that I am refusing to argue with you about another argument? Nice logic btw

If you insist on trying to start yet another row then as I suggest go and find that signpost I mentioned - I'm sure it is more than willing to stand and listen to you Fortunately for me I am not....

Tara chuck....








*as for profanity - I believe fcs it is a normal expression especially used by clergy....

 

[JanetGeorge]

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.

And who abused you? Not me. The staghunters, beaglers, minkhunters etc might rightly postulate that you are single-minded and perhaps selfish to assume that only the fox matters - the hare, the mink and the stag can all be equally wily quarry!

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.

Mmm - what happened to your apparent disdain for personal attacks?? And what on earth does Herne have to apologise to JM for - pointing out his errors (in a perfectly polite manner!)?? That's what a discussion forum is about! If you met Herne - not knowing it WAS Herne - you would find him charming, intelligent, jovial, and totally committed to hunting! Because that's what he IS!!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

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

Oh dear JM - you ARE easily intimidated! And overly sensitive too! You have obviously never suffered TRUE intimidation as those of us who were at the forefront of the battle did - names and home addresses published on the internet as part of an ALF 'hit list'; razor blade devices through the post, bomb threats, telephoned death threats, etc etc etc.

Herne - and I - and C_C have pointed out instances where 'your opinions' do NOT stand up to examination by anyone with knowledge of the legislative process. Now frankly, I don't care much what YOU think the CA should be doing - I am concerned that people reading your posts MIGHT think you were right! After all, to the uninformed, your arguments could appear convincing! Very few people have in-depth knowledge of the parliamentary process - and what goes into defeating a Bill. I could ask you what the relevance of the 'Icecream on Sundays' Bill - or the 'Weights & Measures' Bill were to various attempts to ban hunting - do you know?? I doubt it - very few people do. But I do - and Herne does - because we were closely involved in a number of attempts to ban hunting and understand how the parliamentary 'game' is played!

The moaning about 'intimidation' and people being rude to you is a game the antis play when they are losing the debate - it's a distraction - and doesn't stand up to examination! So please try to stop being so childish!

 

[Herne]

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)?

Sensible comments, VoR.

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

This is the problem. Love it or hate it, as Janet says the Countryside Alliance is the only organisation that is fighting Hunting's corner. All hunting people need to throw their weight behind it, even if they don't agree with all of its methods, if repeal is to be achieved.

Lots of people did not agree that Eisenhower should be made Commanding Officer for D-Day, nor that Normandy was the best option. However, once he was in that position, and once he had decided on those tactics, everyone who wanted the war to be won had to drop their opposition and muck in as best they could to make them work.

It's the same thing here.

 

[Fiagai]

Herne - and I - and C_C have pointed out instances where 'your opinions' do NOT stand up to examination by anyone with knowledge of the legislative process. Now frankly, I don't care much what YOU think the CA should be doing - I am concerned that people reading your posts MIGHT think you were right! After all, to the uninformed, your arguments could appear convincing! Very few people have in-depth knowledge of the parliamentary process - and what goes into defeating a Bill. I could ask you what the relevance of the 'Icecream on Sundays' Bill - or the 'Weights & Measures' Bill were to various attempts to ban hunting - do you know?? I doubt it - very few people do. But I do - and Herne does - because we were closely involved in a number of attempts to ban hunting and understand how the parliamentary 'game' is played!

Please remember again that these opinions are your own and unless we bring in legal specialists or a relevant legislative authorities to make unilateral interpretations then such arguments remain at the end of the day just that - Your Opinions. It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others

Oh dear JM - you ARE easily intimidated! And overly sensitive too! You have obviously never suffered TRUE intimidation as those of us who were at the forefront of the battle did - names and home addresses published on the internet as part of an ALF 'hit list'; razor blade devices through the post, bomb threats, telephoned death threats, etc etc etc....

The moaning about 'intimidation' and people being rude to you is a game the antis play when they are losing the debate - it's a distraction - and doesn't stand up to examination! So please try to stop being so childish!

....and so it continues. JM has voiced his own opinion and is plainly again being derided. I expect better of those that hunt....

 

[Judgemental]

It's gone very quiet in here...

Nothing more to say, JM?

Herne on page 7 of this thread - 27/09/11 you said the above.

I had said all that was necessary. Following your question, I simply repeated my views and you called me a 'babbler'.

For that I now demand an apology, especially in this forum.

Indeed, at that point the thread had sunk whilst, other subjects overtook the issue.

However it has subsequently been resurrected largely by your goodself.

I repeat, it is my view that Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 should be amended and with alacrity.

From what I have been told my views and strategy are beginning to stick in various quarters.

Interestingly when I mentioned the role of Barristers and Solicitors on 30 Sept, things went very quiet for a while.

Which begs the question, all these people who apparently 'make things happen' for us in Parliament what are they paid?

With your infallible knowledge and of course that of Mrs George, perhaps you can both shed some light on this area?

I will add that I have a suspicion that some who ‘move and shake hunting’ in the Great Wen are paid professionals, in whose interests financially it is, to self perpetuate the argument, without getting anything done. Yet still asking folk to continually stump up money and subscriptions to keep them in a job.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Please remember again that these opinions are your own and unless we bring in legal specialists or a relevant legislative authorities to make unilateral interpretations then such arguments remain at the end of the day just that - Your Opinions. It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others

....and so it continues. JM has voiced his own opinion and is plainly again being derided. I expect better of those that hunt....

Everyone's opinions ARE their own - and they are entitled to hold them - but when they state them on a public discussion forum then they must expect those who hold contrary opinions to disagree - and explain why we disagree!

I think most hunting people know my background - and recognise that I have a fair bit of experience and first hand involvement in 'hunting politics'. I was heavily involved in defeating the Foster Bill, regularly involved in discussions with the CA 'Bar Group' - VERY well qualified and experienced Barristers and solicitors who gave their expertise on a completely voluntary basis to help defeat the Bill!! And that included being dragged out of bed on the Wednesday night before the Bill was debated to draft amendments to a last minute attempt by Foster to save his Bill which could easily have succeeded if we hadn't acted fast - and if our Tory friends hadn't kept the House sitting until 1 am so that our amendments could be delivered to the Speaker in time!!

Now JM may be a specialist in parliamentaery procedure in the real world - but from his posts here that seems highly unlikely! And I'm not going to 'out' Herne here - but - believe me - his experience is also extensive!

Disagreeing with someone on a discussion forum is NOT 'derision' - it's debate!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Interestingly when I mentioned the role of Barristers and Solicitors on 30 Sept, things went very quiet for a while.

Which begs the question, all these people who apparently 'make things happen' for us in Parliament what are they paid?

With your infallible knowledge and of course that of Mrs George, perhaps you can both shed some light on this area?

See my previous post!! I don't know if the 'Bar Group' is still 'working' (free of charge) for the CA - I DO know we could not have defeated Foster - and won another 5 years - without them! Nor could we have defeated Foster without the VERY considerable efforts of David Maclean, (now Baron Blencathra) and Edward Garnier, in particular!! And they were certainly not paid or rewarded in ANY material sense (Hell, they bought the champagne we celebrated with in the Members' Tea Room after the Bill was killed - to the immense annoyance of the Late Tony Banks MP!!)

 

[Judgemental]

That's all very well Mrs George.

That was then, this is now.

You are referring to events in what - circa 1998.

I want to know what the current movers, shakers and profressionals are being paid.

 

[Fiagai]

....
Disagreeing with someone on a discussion forum is NOT 'derision' - it's debate!

...The moaning about 'intimidation' and people being rude to you is a game the antis play when they are losing the debate - it's a distraction - and doesn't stand up to examination! So please try to stop being so childish!

So this is an example of debate? I am learning all the time.....

 

[JanetGeorge]

I want to know what the current movers, shakers and profressionals are being paid.

Then look at the Countryside Alliance accounts! Obviously data protection etc does not permit every salary to be listed alongside the employee's name - but I believe accounts give a total salaries figure, number of staff, and number of staff receiving salaries over £xxxx! Board members are NOT paid; consultants - when used - will be paid market rate. A large campaigning organisation can't operate with only part-time volunteers - it needs competent staff (and if you pay peanuts .....)

 

[EAST KENT]

Two,maybe three people being abusive and big headed enough to let down everyone who hunts/hunted .Disgraceful, I am out of here..well done ,enjoy the view.

 

[Herne]

Herne on page 7 of this thread - 27/09/11 you said the above.

I had said all that was necessary. Following your question, I simply repeated my views and you called me a 'babbler'.

For that I now demand an apology, especially in this forum.

Yes, well that’s not really how it happened is it?

On pages 4. 5 & 6 you were banging on about repealing Section 8 by Statutory Instrument.

“It's a matter of a stroke of a pen.” you said.

It was explained to you, perfectly politely, that that was not correct.

I am assuming from the fact that that you have stopped banging on about it, that you now accept that you were wrong about that – but an admission would not have been out of order, not least because of the way you were deriding “those who represent the cause” as being are “not in your opinion too bright”.

As it turns out, it was you who were wrong about that, not them, so a retraction of that accusation would have been in order.

Or do you still claim that Section 8 can be repealed by Statutory Instrument?


On page 6, you then change tack and start suggesting that the Bill should be amended to get rid of Section 8. It is explained to you that we do not have the clout to do so.

On page 7, you change tack again and started claiming that the power to enter premises conferred by Section 8 was extraordinary – and that suggestion was shown to be incorrect by Janet George and Aesculus.

Everything then went very quiet for a while.

When I asked you whether you had anything more to say, at that stage, I was, perhaps rather naively, expecting that you might perhaps confess that your understanding had been in error and withdraw your criticisms of “those who represent the cause”.

No such luck.


On Page 9, you then start suggesting that we, the hunting world, should some how start making, and you stressed making, Conservative MPs do things and that we should fire our leaders if they do not deliver.

Again, it was explained by more people than just me why this was not possible.

Then on Page 11, you go back to having Section 8 amended again.

It is at that point that I called you a “Babbler” - 3 pages and 7 of your postings after I asked you if you had anything else to say.

This is a hunting forum, and as I explained at the time, in hunting parlance a babbler is a hound that continually speaks on the wrong line.

If you have been speaking on the wrong line – making factually incorrect statements as it has several times been demonstrated that you have – then the term babbler is not inappropriate, especially on a hunting forum.

I have on several occasions invited you to prove that any of your statements are correct or that any of my refutations of them are incorrect. This you have so far declined to do.

I therefore refute the suggestion that any apology is in order.

You will observe that I did not call you a “liar” or in anyway imply that you deliberately imparting false information.

I merely pointed out that you were speaking on the wrong line. I could just as easily, and with the same effect, have used another canine simile and said you were barking up the wrong tree – and I would not apologise for that one either.


From you, on the other hand, an apology for and retraction of your accusation that those who represent the cause are not too bright would be entirely in order.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Two,maybe three people being abusive and big headed enough to let down everyone who hunts/hunted .Disgraceful, I am out of here..well done ,enjoy the view.

the boys aren't listening,we dont exist so save your breath,EK..

 

[Herne]

Still replying to other posters posts then, splicing them and taking bits out of context?

I think trying to suggest that it is somehow wrong to reply to other poster’s posts on a public debating forum as a way of avoiding answering a question that you don’t want to answer is possibly the lamest attempt at a get-out that I have ever seen

You are in effect arguing now that I am refusing to argue with you about another argument? Nice logic btw

Nope. Merely pointing out – again – that you are unable to justify the two accusations you made against C_C. Tut tut!

And let’s face it, Fiagai, old chap, I don’t think that you are going to be able to persuade anyone following this thread that if you were able to prove me wrong on this you wouldn’t LEAP on the chance to rub my nose in it.

*as for profanity - I believe fcs it is a normal expression especially used by clergy....

Really?

These will be the clergy who think that the third of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain”, is optional, will they…?

 

[Herne]

the boys aren't listening,we dont exist so save your breath,EK..

I'm listening, Rosie.

I have been asking for examples of the "abusing" and "insulting" and "attacking" that I am supposed to have done

But I am hearing very little.

Apart from JM complaining about "babbler", which is, let's face it, so mild a form of critcism in hunting parlance as to be insignificant (as you, as a huntsman's wife, should know well), the silence is deafening.

This forum has fully-functioning quoting facilities - if I have done these things, exposing them is the matter of a few swishes and clicks of the mouse.

But all we see is more accusations - nary a shred of evidence.

 

[Fiagai]

I think trying to suggest that it is somehow wrong to reply to other poster’s posts on a public debating forum as a way of avoiding answering a question that you don’t want to answer is possibly the lamest attempt at a get-out that I have ever seen

*You persist in attempting to start yet another argument....not complying with your little games herne...

Nope. Merely pointing out – again – that you are unable to justify the two accusations you made against C_C. Tut tut!

Judge and Jury on all issues herne? See above*

And let’s face it, Fiagai, old chap, I don’t think that you are going to be able to persuade anyone following this thread that if you were able to prove me wrong on this you wouldn’t LEAP on the chance to rub my nose in it.

A bit over familiar Herne? Certainly not your "old chap" see above*

Really?
These will be the clergy who think that the third of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain”, is optional, will they…?

Really? See above*

A modus operandi of insulting and deriding other posters really is pathetic. As I have said I have no wish to comply with your little games so once again I will repeat...Give It A Break and this time for everyones sake!

Goodnight D)

 

[rosie fronfelen]

I'm listening, Rosie.

I have been asking for examples of the "abusing" and "insulting" and "attacking" that I am supposed to have done

But I am hearing very little.

Apart from JM complaining about "babbler", which is, let's face it, so mild a form of critcism in hunting parlance as to be insignificant (as you, as a huntsman's wife, should know well), the silence is deafening.

This forum has fully-functioning quoting facilities - if I have done these things, exposing them is the matter of a few swishes and clicks of the mouse.

But all we see is more accusations - nary a shred of evidence.

Herne,i have no intention of speaking my mind-Ihave not abusedYOU at all but believe you me,i am taking it all in.

 

[EAST KENT]

Herne,i have no intention of speaking my mind-Ihave not abusedYOU at all but believe you me,i am taking it all in.

Don`t worry Rosie,sadly this one has done more for own goals than anyone.He epitomises why hunting people are hated.Hope you are OKish, wish ,oh wish,I could help , keep fighting

 

[Judgemental]

Herne - bored now - blown home

 

[JanetGeorge]

Don`t worry Rosie,sadly this one has done more for own goals than anyone.He epitomises why hunting people are hated.

I thought you were out of here?? But no, you have to keep coming back to be downright offensive about someone who has done more good for hunting - and made more friends for hunting - than the VAST majority of hunting people I know!

IMHO, YOU epitomise why some people may hate hunting people - you can't cope with people who can put forward a coherent argument and who know what they are talking about - so you take refuge in personal attacks! And yes, I know I am personally attacking you here - but you do thoroughly deserve it!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

EK was talking to ME,thanks JG-Who's being abusive now then,i must say,you think very highly of yourself and your sidekick,Herne..,also EK Is avery caring person,she has a good heart,just cos you dont know all hunting folk,dont give them all the damns----------------

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Herne - bored now - blown home

dont blame you Judge, its all very one way now.

 

[JanetGeorge]

EK was talking to ME,thanks JG-Who's being abusive now then,i must say,you think very highly of yourself and your sidekick,Herne..,also EK Is avery caring person,she has a good heart,just cos you dont know all hunting folk,dont give them all the damns----------------

There is a PM system for PRIVATE conversations rosiefronfelen! EK was posting on a PUBLIC forum - about a person I have a great deal of respect for because I knopw just how hard he has has worked over many years in the best interests of hunting!! EK - and most others here - I can only judge on what they post here behind the anonymity of a username!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

you've successfully got rid of another poster but thats what you want isnt it JG?So i'll leave you to your heirarchy---