Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's not just toffs, many in the countryside joined in and if you look at some of the other 'animal sports' that were already illegal a whole differnet socioeconomic group partake (or partook) in dog fighting, badger baiting etc. We spent a Christmas in South Wales years ago and were astonished by the scores of 'everyday country folk' who turned up to watch the Boxing Day hunt.


Not agreeing with any of this I hasten on and it is a shame that as a society we can't move on and dispatch babaric acts to history.

Uncleglen, clearly leaving things to country folk has led to a whole raft of cruelty to animals, from battery hens to ripping live animals apart for sport. No thank you. There is no place for that kind of cruelty.


There is no more cruel and destructive species on this planet than mankind. We are the only species that inflicts widespread needless cruelty on other living things. We kill millions of our own species every year for no acceptable reason. So I think it's a bit rich to paint any animal as somehow being more cruel than the humans who think cruelty for sport is a fun day out.


And TED is right. There are plenty of country folk who are anti-hunt.

Clealy none of you has watched the troop of monkeys on an Attenborough type documentary ripping to shreds another monkey (of a different species). The former aren't primarily meat eaters, but go 'apeshit' occasionally and tear up the odd animal that gets onto their patch.


No doubt some other mammals not far of our supposed intelligence do similar (dolphins?)

Dear Forum Members.. We Did It


I have just received this important news from The League Against Cruel Sports


I?m writing to you with some fantastic news.


Thanks to all our collective efforts, we have seen off the planned back door attack on the Hunting Act. This news unfolded today during Prime Ministers Questions, when David Cameron was forced to admit that a proposal was indeed being considered, but that he regretted that it wouldn?t get support from both sides of the Coalition. This means an amendment has no chance of proceeding as things stand.


We have won the battle, but know full well that the war is not yet won. We need David Cameron to state categorically that he either:



accepts the Hunting Act is an important and successful piece of legislation, and removes the promise of full repeal,

OR


that he will try to dismantle it in an open and transparent way by holding a repeal vote.

We know, as does he, that he will not win this ? and that the majority of the British public, and MPs, would not support a return to cruelty.


Rest assured, after 90 years of campaigning to both bring about and enforce a ban on hunting with hounds for sport, we remain ever vigilant in defence of the Act. For now though the foxes, hares, deer and more that the legislation protects remain safe from the full horrors of traditional hunting.


Our campaigns of course focus on more than just hunting, as unfortunately there are many ways people chose to abuse animals for entertainment. And the badger cull issue is about to hit the headlines again, so please do ensure you look out for our emails, and do all you can to support our campaigns.


Thank you once again for all you do for animals. Together we have made a real difference.


With very best wishes


Joe Duckworth



Chief Executive

League Against Cruel Sports


Thanks to all who campaigned to make this possible.


DulwichFox

> We need David Cameron to

> state categorically that he either:

> accepts the Hunting Act is an important and

> successful piece of legislation, and removes the

> promise of full repeal,

> OR

> that he will try to dismantle it in an open and

> transparent way by holding a repeal vote.


> Joe Duckworth

> Chief Executive

> League Against Cruel Sports



"Q12. [902409] Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister make clear whether he will still, quite wrongly, try to end the ban on fox hunting?


"The Prime Minister: My view remains that which was in the manifesto on which I stood?that is, that the House of Commons should have the opportunity for a debate and a vote on the issue."


PMQs Hansard 5 February 2014 Column 270 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140205/debtext/140205-0001.htm

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> This news unfolded today during Prime Ministers Questions, when David Cameron was forced

> to admit that a proposal was indeed being considered, but that he regretted that it wouldn?t

> get support from both sides of the Coalition. This means an amendment has no chance of proceeding as

> things stand.


So, the Lib Dems quashed it, in other words?

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *cough*

>

> CLASS WAR.........

>

> Toff replacing the fox, that's what it comes down

> to for MOST who bang on about this....not Foxy

> though, he genuienely loves the the mangy things


I think you've hit the nail on the head there quids.


Although I am pretty certain that foxy, AQ and others do genuinely care for and believe in animal welfare.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...