[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by iwilson03)
Yep, but don't worry I've already cried about it

Then I comfort ate.

Now I'm 20 stone, which is basically all your fault

There there... *pat pat*

[TheCrackInTime]

I'm sorry but no. This isn't the time for a knee jerk, reactionary motion.

[Claphamski]

It is knee-jerk as everyone else says, but ill vote for anything that might bring back hunting with dogs

[Melancholy]

Humans abuse far more children. Shall we hunt them instead?

I quite liked Brian May's defence of the hunting ban. And Nick Herbert (MP)'s dismal performance.

And what about injuries caused by dogs? And, in fact, encouraging fox hunting may encourage more foxes in urban areas? Etc, etc, etc... We've all seen the arguments. Personally, I happen to support animal rights and I support the animal rights argument in favour of the ban prohibiting hunting foxes as a sport. (I also find it baffling that anybody could reject the concept of animal rights - and I especially deplore some of the weak and breathtakingly hypocritical/contradictory arguments which invariably drip from the mouths of the aristocratic Christian Right on this issue).

Talk about an overreaction. One sensational news-story and somehow the issue is blown out of all proportion... Humans just need to take care where they dump their rubbish so that they don't attract foxes, ants, wasps and other pests/animals.

[Drogue]

(Original post by Indievertigo)
If you will ban hunting...

It isn't, just using dogs for it. Also, is there much demand for fox hunting on East London streets? I can't see it myself.

Fox hunting does nothing to stop urban foxes.

[Drogue]

(Original post by simontinsley)
No, to react to event with laws is a recipe for disaster.

I always find this a strange view. As Keynes famously said, "when the facts change, I change my mind". Should we not change banking rules because that would just be reacting to an event (the banking crisis)? Of course not, the banking crisis revealed that the rules forn banks, the ability to privatise profits and socialise losses, wasn't appropriate and needed changing.

Things happening often highlight issues that need to change. One example is often not enough of a reason to change, but it's worth investigating if that one issue is the visible symptom of a bigger problem that is.

[ByronicHero]

I'm confused, can single people attempt to pass bills? =/

In terms of this one, I would vote no If I had a vote lol.

[FranticMind]

(Original post by Indievertigo)
If you will ban hunting...

Bring back fox hunting!

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Moe Lester)
Controlling the litter and cat-food foxes feed on would be more useful!

This

(Original post by JakePearson)
Guns in the home will help this - not more bloody regulation.

They can be fast when they want to be, good luck trying to shoot them.

(Original post by JakePearson)
I wasn't seriously suggesting it as a measure to stop foxes mauling children. Just that if there were guns in the home then in the rare cases it could be prevented.

If guns were allowed in the home it would take some time for all regular civilians (who have had no prior millitary training or experience with guns) to really know how to use a weapon and how to look after it.

(Original post by Melancholy)
I quite liked Brian May's defence of the hunting ban. And Nick Herbert (MP)'s dismal performance.

Yes I have to admit it was. I think Brian May went a bit too far to question whether the children concerned were really atacked by foxes or not.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by paddy__power)
I'm confused, can single people attempt to pass bills? =/

In terms of this one, I would vote no If I had a vote lol.

Firstly, yes single people can submit a PMB (Private Members bill) if they are an MP. If they are not then they need backing and endorsement from a couple of MP's.

Secondly this isn't a bill it's a motion.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Firstly, yes single people can submit a PMB (Private Members bill) if they are an MP. If they are not then they need backing and endorsement from a couple of MP's.

Secondly this isn't a bill it's a motion.

And anyone can submit a motion?

[Jangrafess]

Knee jerk reaction, as everyone else has said. Considering a majority of the members of this house used that as a reason not to vote for the Dangerous Dogs bill, I propose that this also be the main reason for opposing this motion, and I am glad to see that this is the case.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by paddy__power)
And anyone can submit a motion?

Yes, you don't need MP support for it either (I don't think so anyway.)

You start it off with:

"This house believes" then write the rest and then send it to the speaker. There is a couple of days of debate and then the house votes on it.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Yes, you don't need MP support for it either (I don't think so anyway.)

You start it off with:

"This house believes" then write the rest and then send it to the speaker. There is a couple of days of debate and then the house votes on it.

Interesting, I was not aware of this. Thanks =]

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Interesting, I was not aware of this. Thanks =]

Not a problem

[Phugoid]

Lol what absolute nonsense.

Controlling the population of foxes will not prevent incidents like this. This attack was not a result of the overpopulation of foxes. It was the result of a foxes ability to enter a home, and, most probably, a mother's ability to exaggerate the situation when it comes to selling her story to the tabloids, with headlines "Fox stared me down without remorse" running all over the place.

You can't use one isolated and heavily exaggerated incident to fuel the need for toffs to kill things to satisfy their childhood frustrations.

[simontinsley]

(Original post by Drogue)
I always find this a strange view. As Keynes famously said, "when the facts change, I change my mind". Should we not change banking rules because that would just be reacting to an event (the banking crisis)? Of course not, the banking crisis revealed that the rules forn banks, the ability to privatise profits and socialise losses, wasn't appropriate and needed changing.

Things happening often highlight issues that need to change. One example is often not enough of a reason to change, but it's worth investigating if that one issue is the visible symptom of a bigger problem that is.

One must asses whether something is systematic or a freak incident. Your analogy is flawed in that it compares something systematic with a freak incident.

A fox mauling is no reason to control the population of foxes and one guy going on a rampage killing 15 people is no reason to ban guns. To legislate based on one-off incidents is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps I should have been clearer in that distinction.

[Smack]

Nope to knee-jerk reactionism.

[Cardozo]

No. Dogs have done more maulings recently.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Cardozo)
No. Dogs have done more maulings recently.

Not just recently.