The Voice of Reason from - shock! horror! - The Sunday Telegraph!

J

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 December 2006
Messages
86
Visit site
"Oh, come on: didn't you just know, the minute you heard our friends back at Today announce their wheeze to find the law "we the people" most want repealed, that it would be bloody fox hunting? Fair enough to the pro-hunters, if they enjoy their little game at our expense. What is not fair, however, is for anybody to suggest that an organised few hundred in a nation of 60 million provide any clue to the views of we-the-people; they are, in the scheme of things, as mathematically irrational as they are statistically meaningless and, as with all such sampling, should never be sold to us in the guise of fact or news.

The pity is that these shrill tongues are given credence at a time when we have available to us a more exact science of proper polling than ever before. And if democracy and egalitarianism are as desirable as we hold them to be, we also have ample opportunity to change channels, switch newspapers and amend votes come election day. To which end, the better to inform those decisions, the voice of the people might be well advised to hush its mouth in favour of some altogether more useful opening of eyes and ears."

Carol Sarler, Sunday Telegraph
7 January 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/07/do0705.xml
 
"The pity is that these shrill tongues are given credence at a time when we have available to us a more exact science of proper polling than ever before."

And in such a proper poll only 28% of people beleive the Hunting Act is working. Does that make it a good law?
 
The point of the article is that the today poll is statistically meaningless.

Aspposed to the fact that only 28% of people think the law is working which is statistically meaningfull.

Good laws work, bad laws don't. Do you think moist people think the Hunting Act is a good law?
 
Or the C.A monopolising polls to give the false impression that everyone wants the ban overturned.

Gotta hand it to the C.A, best actors this country has produced in years - wouldn't be surprised if they recruit from R.A.D.A!! :grin:
 
They did - as always! Thats why most polls on hunting have become meaningless now. As soon as the C.A or someone similar gets wind of one the emails start flying and the P.R machine starts and before you know it 100,000 pro's have voted their way whereas barely anyone else even knows there is a bloody poll!
 
No No No No No. The poll I'm talking about wasn't conducted like that it was a scientific random sample by an independant polling company.

It showed only 28% of people think the act is working.

For God's sake Endy keep up man.

I think you missed the point of my post, hehehe......read it again maybe you'll get it the 10,00000th time round! :smirk:
 
Apologies, I'm talking about about the C.A in general and how they manipulate voting systems. I'm usually at work when I post and can only grab 10 mins here or there on the sly so i have to speed read everything!

Even if 99% of people thought the bill wasn't working, it doesn't show support for hunting. These people may ALL be anti-hunt and think the bill doesn't work due to under-policing or the way it's written. Many sabs don't think the bill works. So it doesn't show support for hunting at all.
 
Many people I talk to antis and pros believe the law was a waste of money and time. And I also believe people need to stop taking what they read in the papers as gospel!!
 
That's precisely the point whether you're anti or pro the Hunting Act is a thoroughly bad law.

The only people who claim it is a good law do so for purely political reasons.

Anti cruelty laws should be comprehensively revised to incorporate wild animals and the Hunting act should be repealed.
 
I think Eagle Day is right.

The whole foundation of the bill is faulty. To suggest it can be fixed with a bit of tinkering is nonsense. To start with Labour are not going to devote one minute more of parliamentary time to it after the 700 gruelling hours they've been through.

They banned the wrong thing, they should have reformed anti-cruelty laws. Instead they created a ridiculous controversy that became a matter of macho-principle.

If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top