! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.
Boxing Day hunts attracted in the region of 320,000 supporters this year.
The hunts were monitored by police and animal rights terrorists, the League Against Cruel Sports.
The Police used video cameras to record meets claiming that they were doing so in case things got out of hand althoug they’re probably building up a database of hunt supporters ready for the ID database.
The League Against Cruel Sports is calling for more police time and resources to be wasted enforcing the hunting ban. As far as I know, they haven’t offered to use their own funds to pay for it though.
And why should anyone use their own funds to enforce a law, if you were ‘mugged’ would you expect to pay toward the investigation? The fact is, like it or not, a law agianst hunting is in place and while there are many, many laws I do not like I expect to have to abide by them until such time as they are changed – and I expect them to be enforced.
Anything else is surely anarchy?
The law is clearly unenforceable otherwise it would be enforced. A million people protested against the ban – that’s over 1.5% of the population, a figure unheard of in modern times. The ban is nothing to do with animal rights and everything to do with champagne socialists making a token gesture towards a class war.
No law is unenforcable if the will is there to resource the enforcement, at the moment it is not but that is not the same as ‘unenforceable’. So 98.5% of the population did not protest the ban, so what – the fact is that a law exists and you think you can choose which law you abide by and which you don’t! You have the right to try to change any law – you have no right to break one simply because you personally disagree with it. If I fancy your 52″ Plasma TV it is the law that stops me taking it, now it might make me madder than hell that I can’t have it but I can’t, simple as that. Society is based on law.
And ‘Class War’ Wonko? For God’s sake, I’m a working guy not Tony Bliar, so talk to me as such – and yes, I do disagree with hunting (so at least one working guy is on the side of the antis in this matter, isn’t he?).
The sticking point is just that, the resource to enforce the ban. If there’s a choice between catching rapists, murders or kiddie fiddlers or enforcing a hunting ban then I say Tally Ho!
And the class war – Labour has pledged to remove the class system and fox hunting is a symbol of the upper classes. This was the real motivation behind the ban.
They should hunt the class war and ALF scum with dogs instead.
Everyone’s happy!
May I suggest, Wonko, that the ‘real motivation’ behind the ban was to stop cruelty to foxes? That idea may be revolutionary, but possible perhaps.
Cruelty to foxes? The fox is killed outright within a matter seconds 99.9% of the time. Have you ever tried to shoot an animal while it is running? A wounded fox bleeding to death over a couple of days is surely more cruel than being killed outright by dogs?
We won’t change each others point of view, will we? I feel there is nothing I can say that will disuade you from hunting – and there’s sure as hell nothing you can say which will make me support it!
Eh Mates!! wonder ’bout us yanks?
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/content/comments/rumsfeld_called_to_testify_in_war_protesters_trial/