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

[EAST KENT]

But ,just before leaving,I have GREAT NEWS.. the powers that be have just confirmed to me ..that all three ..Janet George,the anonymous Herne,and the anonymous Combat Claire have ALL been awarded a DARWIN. Well,well done!

 

[millreef]

I stumbled in here out of curiosity as there were so many posts but I don't understand a SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is anyone else confused??

 

[rosie fronfelen]

I stumbled in here out of curiosity as there were so many posts but I don't understand a SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is anyone else confused??

i advise youto remain confused,its all a nonsense..,

 

[Alec Swan]

I stumbled in here out of curiosity as there were so many posts but I don't understand a SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is anyone else confused??

And I agree with Rosie.

Regardless of the perceived rights, or the wrongs of the arguments, I'm happy to point out that when others hide behind anonymity, and though not always agreeing, then Mrs. George and I, are as one.

Put your names onto the board. Then we'll see just how brave you are.

Alec.

 

[Fiagai]

There is a BIG differenece on commenting on a post to the contents of a post in an open forum

and

Replying directly to someones else's post as if you were the other poster for your own purposes

The PM system is there for private messages - it does not mean that two posters cannot maintain a dialogue without being highjacked on those intent on continously attempting to stir up trouble

Banging on about a posters persona outside this forum is largely irrelevant....they may be his serene holiness the Dali Lama or even the pope. That is irrelevant to what is said and how it is been said on this forum.

 

[combat_claire]

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.

Who appointed you arbitrator of this thread. If I wish to refer back to other incidents where you and others of your ilk have been impolite to other users of this forum then I am at complete liberty to do so.

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

Firstly who appointed you Troll Smeller Pursuivant. Secondly it has been stated numerous times before that the polite arguments put forward in favour of hunting will not necessarily convince the poster who posed a question that is branded by you as having troll like tendencies it is the casual browser who sticks a question about hunting into google and is directed to HHO that needs to see that there is nothing that the pro-hunting debate cannot answer. Simply having a section of the forum who yell 'Troll' at the aerliest opportunity is counter-productive. I have never attempted to align you with the anti-hunting brigade. I have merely pointed out that several of the comments made have been totally unhelpful. A completely distinct argument.

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.

Firstly I have not questioned your alliances, I have simply pointed out that many of the comments made in recent days have not been at all helpful. I note the irony of you bleating on about not attacking posters when you do exactly the same thing to posters who you brand as trolls regardless of whether they could just be asking a somewhat naive question.

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

The emoticon was attached to the sentence regarding the re-opening of Hounds forum and to that sentence alone.

 

[combat_claire]

Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

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

Hardly, he is challenging you to find specific examples of where he has been rude to you.

 

[combat_claire]

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

This is a public forum and Herne is as entitled as anyone else to reply to any thread on this board. I again challenge you to find any example where Herne has been anything other than polite.

You have insulted another poster and that poster has asked (and rightly so imo) for a apology. .

No he hasn't. He has merely robustly pointed out the flaws in Judgemental's argument. There is no apology required.

 

[combat_claire]

But ,just before leaving,I have GREAT NEWS.. the powers that be have just confirmed to me ..that all three ..Janet George,the anonymous Herne,and the anonymous Combat Claire have ALL been awarded a DARWIN. Well,well done!

Boo hoo, you were rude to me I demand an immediate apology and ask that you cease trying to intimidate me.

 

[VoR]

The anti-hunting 'lobby' (if they are reading this thread) must be beside themselves with joy seeing how the pro-hunters are tearing themselves apart, increasingly saddened and to avoid further depression will bow out of reading any further posts on this thread....so sad.

 

[Maesfen]

Couldn't agree more VoR with both of your posts. Very disappointed in a lot of you that have posted on this thread.

 

[Fiagai]

Who appointed you arbitrator of this thread. If I wish to refer back to other incidents where you and others of your ilk have been impolite to other users of this forum then I am at complete liberty to do so.

CC You are obviously spoling for a huge argument. I am afraid I am going to disappoint you but I leave you to your own devices I will point out the folllowing

I see from athe above that "we" are ilk now as well? Is this in addition to your rude and unhelpfull references to Gangs Posses Groups etc ?

Firstly who appointed you Troll Smeller Pursuivant.

The only person who brought "Trolls" CC into this thread was you. Thankfully "Trolls" are quite good at outing themselves. If you wish to start a thread about trolls and whether you believe in them or not please do so BUt do not attempt to use it against others as a poster bashing tool

Firstly I have not questioned your alliances, I have simply pointed out that many of the comments made in recent days have not been at all helpful. ..

Let me see...simply pointed out...not helpfull! This????

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...It would appear that it is allowable for your group to be rude....

tbh you appear to have TRolls, Gangs and Posse's on the brain....
If you wish to simply insult and not debate or discuss then that is of course your business I am however not interested in your belligerence

YOU are making a mockery out of this forum with your rude and agressive argumentative method of attempting to destroy anyone who has a conatry view

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Couldn't agree more VoR with both of your posts. Very disappointed in a lot of you that have posted on this thread.

Does this include me?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Does this include me?

There have been some classics on this thread, but my award goes to the Google King.

 

[Fiagai]

There have been some classics on this thread, but my award goes to the Google King.

Personally I agree with what has been said above. Sadly what started as a discusion one way or the other has descended into a farce but who or what may I ask is "the google king"?

 

[Herne]

The anti-hunting 'lobby' (if they are reading this thread) must be beside themselves with joy seeing how the pro-hunters are tearing themselves apart

They will be happy - but it is nothing that they are not used to. Hunting people have always been their own worst enemies.

What this thread has boiled down to is a small number of people who support the policies of the Countryside Alliance and the fight for repeal being shouted down by an equally small number of people who don’t.

The tactics of the latter being to attempt to discredit the personal integrity of the former.

In this whole so-called debate, I don't think that anyone has tried to demonstrate that anything I have said is actually wrong.

They merely concentrate on trying to make out that I am a horrible person who says it nastily.

Which is, if you think about it, actually kind of irrelevant to the actual subject of the debate.

Something that is true doesn't become any less so because it is (supposedly) said nastily.

Something that is incorrect does not become any less so because the person saying it is a terribly nice chap and someone else was (supposedly) horrid to him.

So it would still be kind of irrelevant even if they could demonstrate that I was nasty. But they haven't actually even attempted to do that - despite being asked on many occasions, because they don't need to. As every tabloid journalist knows, if you throw enough mud, it sticks.

The difference between me and my detractors is that far from shouting JM down, I have been actively trying to get him to engage in debate, either by promoting his theory or by shooting holes in mine; by conceding that his original position was in error or by demonstrating that mine was - because that is what a debate is supposed to be.


But as I say, in the end the numbers are so small on both sides that this it is all a storm in a tea-cup and will change nothing. Those of us that are working outside this forum to try to make a difference will continue to do so and may possibly change things for the better, and those that aren't will continue to do nothing and definitely won’t.

 

[Rosie Round The Hills]

In I creep to this contentious thread................Based on the fact that this thread has had 5000 views, I would imagine that there is a link to it from a number of 'interested' websites. And I agree with those that have said that this kind of in-fighting and spatting is not a good advert for anyone involved in hunting....................... and out I step again.

 

[Fiagai]

i advise youto remain confused,its all a nonsense..,

rosie...you have hit the nail on the head precisely....

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Personally I agree with what has been said above. Sadly what started as a discusion one way or the other has descended into a farce but who or what may I ask is "the google king"?

The google king, is a reference to the poster who has a history of presenting quotes gleaned from google as his own.
I am sometimes tempted to wonder if he has ever ridden a horse, let alone hunted on one.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

The google king, is a reference to the poster who has a history of presenting quotes gleaned from google as his own.
I am sometimes tempted to wonder if he has ever ridden a horse, let alone hunted on one.

Haha,how wrong you are,AND itsnot me.......................

 

[Fiagai]

I come back to this thread with great reluctance but I felt obliged to do so

For me the saddest thing that has come out of this thread has been the rise of ego at the of cost common sense and normal good manners

The discussion in the first instance concerned a BCC programme about hunting which evolved into a fairly normal discussion concerning relevant parties. Normal good relations were maintained until the point ego reared its ugly head

It is unfortunate that after that point a small number of individuals then began to insist they were right because they said so

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted

This use of this nasty behaviour was excused as being the result of the righteous being questioned and therefore justified

Anyone attempting to engage in actual debate was variously met with insults and a barrage of political canvassing to show that such arguments were beyond reproof

And even where insulting behaviour was highlighted the same self-same righteousness was used as a platform to became both judge and jury for their own acquittal.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future. What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

But I have at least learned one thing from this thread and that is that
manners really do not cost anything but the lack of them may cost everything

 

[rosie fronfelen]

k

I come back to this thread with great reluctance but I felt obliged to do so

For me the saddest thing that has come out of this thread has been the rise of ego at the of cost common sense and normal good manners

The discussion in the first instance concerned a BCC programme about hunting which evolved into a fairly normal discussion concerning relevant parties. Normal good relations were maintained until the point ego reared its ugly head

It is unfortunate that after that point a small number of individuals then began to insist they were right because they said so

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted

This use of this nasty behaviour was excused as being the result of the righteous being questioned and therefore justified

Anyone attempting to engage in actual debate was variously met with insults and a barrage of political canvassing to show that such arguments were beyond reproof

And even where insulting behaviour was highlighted the same self-same righteousness was used as a platform to became both judge and jury for their own acquittal.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future. What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

But I have at least learned one thing from this thread and that is that
manners really do not cost anything but the lack of them may cost everything

Look out Fiagai,you'llget some cock-eyed answer to this.

 

[Fiagai]

k

Look out Fiagai,you'llget some cock-eyed answer to this.

Rosie I took that as read ... it will go nicely with the rest of my week ....

 

[EAST KENT]

I come back to this thread with great reluctance but I felt obliged to do so

For me the saddest thing that has come out of this thread has been the rise of ego at the of cost common sense and normal good manners

The discussion in the first instance concerned a BCC programme about hunting which evolved into a fairly normal discussion concerning relevant parties. Normal good relations were maintained until the point ego reared its ugly head

It is unfortunate that after that point a small number of individuals then began to insist they were right because they said so

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted

This use of this nasty behaviour was excused as being the result of the righteous being questioned and therefore justified

Anyone attempting to engage in actual debate was variously met with insults and a barrage of political canvassing to show that such arguments were beyond reproof

And even where insulting behaviour was highlighted the same self-same righteousness was used as a platform to became both judge and jury for their own acquittal.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future. What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

But I have at least learned one thing from this thread and that is that
manners really do not cost anything but the lack of them may cost everything

Good sensible overview there,totally agree.

 

[Herne]

Fiagai,

If were discussing questions that were a matter of opinion, then you would have a point.

Something like: “Should we go for peaceful protest or civil disobedience?” or “Should the CA concentrate on Hunting or campaign on the Broad Agenda?” These are questions where no one knows the answer and everyone has an opinion and everyone’s opinion has validity.

However, in this case we were not discussing a matter of “opinion”, we were discussing a matter of fact.

JM claimed that: “Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 can be repealed by use of a Statutory Instrument.”

Well, that is a matter of Law. Either it can or it can’t. End of.

And the fact is: it can’t.

That’s not an opinion. That is the Law. It’s there in black and white: section 2(2) sets out what can be amended by order of the SoS, and S8 is not included. Read it.

JM said it could. He was wrong. That is not an attack or an insult. It is merely a statement of what is written down in a publicly available document.

Upon this being pointed out, JM then went on to say, several times, that we should have Section 8 amended.

It was pointed out to him, several times, that we do not command enough votes to have the Bill repealed. That is also not an opinion. It is a fact. Count them.

JM then suggested that we should nibble away at the Act rather than going for repeal because wanting repeal was being “greedy”. This was again simply wrong.

If he had suggested: “If we commanded enough votes to have what we want, then I think we should go for amendment instead of repeal”, that would be an opinion of which we could debate the merits.

But, “As we haven’t got enough votes to achieve repeal, we should go for amendment instead, because that’s easier to achieve” (paraphrased) was not offered an opinion, it was stated as a “fact”.

And it was wrong. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Parliamentary process does not work like that. Repeal is less complicated than amendment. It might not seem as if it should be that way – but it is.

There is no point in pretending that it isn’t, just because someone wants to believe it.

Imagine that you were trapped behind a wall. You might be considering whether it would be best try to break though it or tunnel underneath it, when someone pipes up “I think we should flap our arms and just fly over it!”

You might be justified in giving that “opinion” slightly less weight than the previous two.

However, if, having explained to him the mysteries of human aerodynamics, the person continues to air the same opinion, you would probably be justified in getting somewhat frustrated.

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted … This use of this nasty behaviour … met with insults…

Once again, I ask you to quote the passages in which I have attacked or insulted someone.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future. What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

Once again, I ask you to demonstrate where I, or anyone else, have made that claim.

Look out Fiagai,you'llget some cock-eyed answer to this.

Was that cock-eyed?

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Fiagai,

If were discussing questions that were a matter of opinion, then you would have a point.

Something like: “Should we go for peaceful protest or civil disobedience?” or “Should the CA concentrate on Hunting or campaign on the Broad Agenda?” These are questions where no one knows the answer and everyone has an opinion and everyone’s opinion has validity.

However, in this case we were not discussing a matter of “opinion”, we were discussing a matter of fact.

JM claimed that: “Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 can be repealed by use of a Statutory Instrument.”

Well, that is a matter of Law. Either it can or it can’t. End of.
N
And the fact is: it can’t.

That’s not an opinion. That is the Law. It’s there in black and white: section 2(2) sets out what can be amended by order of the SoS, and S8 is not included. Read it.

JM said it could. He was wrong. That is not an attack or an insult. It is merely a statement of what is written down in a publicly available document.

Upon this being pointed out, JM then went on to say, several times, that we should have Section 8 amended.

It was pointed out to him, several times, that we do not command enough votes to have the Bill repealed. That is also not an opinion. It is a fact. Count them.

JM then suggested that we should nibble away at the Act rather than going for repeal because wanting repeal was being “greedy”. This was again simply wrong.

If he had suggested: “If we commanded enough votes to have what we want, then I think we should go for amendment instead of repeal”, that would be an opinion of which we could debate the merits.

But, “As we haven’t got enough votes to achieve repeal, we should go for amendment instead, because that’s easier to achieve” (paraphrased) was not offered an opinion, it was stated as a “fact”.

And it was wrong. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Parliamentary process does not work like that. Repeal is less complicated than amendment. It might not seem as if it should be that way – but it is.

There is no point in pretending that it isn’t, just because someone wants to believe it.

Imagine that you were trapped behind a wall. You might be considering whether it would be best try to break though it or tunnel underneath it, when someone pipes up “I think we should flap our arms and just fly over it!”

You might be justified in giving that “opinion” slightly less weight than the previous two.

However, if, having explained to him the mysteries of human aerodynamics, the person continues to air the same opinion, you would probably be justified in getting somewhat frustrated.




Once again, I ask you to quote the passages in which I have attacked or insulted someone.




Once again, I ask you to demonstrate where I, or anyone else, have made that claim.





Was that cock-eyed?

I give up to be honest and just hope and pray we have a good season.End of-

 

[EAST KENT]

Fiagai,

If were discussing questions that were a matter of opinion, then you would have a point.

Something like: “Should we go for peaceful protest or civil disobedience?” or “Should the CA concentrate on Hunting or campaign on the Broad Agenda?” These are questions where no one knows the answer and everyone has an opinion and everyone’s opinion has validity.

However, in this case we were not discussing a matter of “opinion”, we were discussing a matter of fact.

JM claimed that: “Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 can be repealed by use of a Statutory Instrument.”

Well, that is a matter of Law. Either it can or it can’t. End of.

And the fact is: it can’t.

That’s not an opinion. That is the Law. It’s there in black and white: section 2(2) sets out what can be amended by order of the SoS, and S8 is not included. Read it.

JM said it could. He was wrong. That is not an attack or an insult. It is merely a statement of what is written down in a publicly available document.

Upon this being pointed out, JM then went on to say, several times, that we should have Section 8 amended.

It was pointed out to him, several times, that we do not command enough votes to have the Bill repealed. That is also not an opinion. It is a fact. Count them.

JM then suggested that we should nibble away at the Act rather than going for repeal because wanting repeal was being “greedy”. This was again simply wrong.

If he had suggested: “If we commanded enough votes to have what we want, then I think we should go for amendment instead of repeal”, that would be an opinion of which we could debate the merits.

But, “As we haven’t got enough votes to achieve repeal, we should go for amendment instead, because that’s easier to achieve” (paraphrased) was not offered an opinion, it was stated as a “fact”.

And it was wrong. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Parliamentary process does not work like that. Repeal is less complicated than amendment. It might not seem as if it should be that way – but it is.

There is no point in pretending that it isn’t, just because someone wants to believe it.

Imagine that you were trapped behind a wall. You might be considering whether it would be best try to break though it or tunnel underneath it, when someone pipes up “I think we should flap our arms and just fly over it!”

You might be justified in giving that “opinion” slightly less weight than the previous two.

However, if, having explained to him the mysteries of human aerodynamics, the person continues to air the same opinion, you would probably be justified in getting somewhat frustrated.




Once again, I ask you to quote the passages in which I have attacked or insulted someone.




Once again, I ask you to demonstrate where I, or anyone else, have made that claim.





Was that cock-eyed?

For goodness sake ..give it a rest please,bored silly now.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

BY the way Herne,if you are ahuntsman/master how come you have all this time to write all this political jargon which is getting very boring for most,or do you have scores of lackeys to do your horses?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

As an observer, I'm sharing Hernes sense of frustration here.
Stamping feet doesn't make laws changed. There is a correct process which is a part of living in a democracy, even when we don't like the laws that interfere with the lifestyle we choose.
It isn't Hernes fault. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Herne]

BY the way Herne,if you are ahuntsman/master how come you have all this time to write all this political jargon which is getting very boring for most,or do you have scores of lackeys to do your horses?

Most people spend their working day on a computer and then go out into the countryside or sit on a horse for their recreation.

I do it the other way round.