Turn on thread page Beta

Fox hunting is barbaric and should be banned. watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    im sure you can find such statistics yes. My belief is, when presented with a clear understanding of the problem, its context and consequences, those voting for an all-out ban are in the minority.
    MORI interviewed 801 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain.
    Interviews were conducted by telephone on 14-15 July 1999.
    All data are weighted to the known profile of Great Britain.
    Where results do not sum to 100, this may be due to multiple responses, or the exclusion of don't knows/not stated.
    An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half of one percent, but not zero.
    Base = all unless otherwise stated.
    Research Study Conducted for The Mail on Sunday

    Q2 And now some questions about hunting wild mammals with dogs (eg fox hunting and stag hunting). To what extent do you support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in Britain?


    %
    Strongly support a ban 52
    Tend to support a ban 11
    Neither support nor oppose a ban 11
    Tend to oppose a ban 10
    Strongly oppose a ban 14
    Don't know/no opinion 2

    So there we are 63% strongly or tend to support a ban, 24% tend to oppose a ban. And 13% don't know or don't have an oppinion.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    why, the reasons were not justified in the eyes of those consulted on the matter as part of the Burns report. the Burns report findings consists of conclusions and clarification based on the those consultations and such evidence. the Burns report is reflective of that opinion and finding, the Burns report makes no such conclusions that would suggest any of those reasons substantiate any concern or need to consider explicit legislation. the report is not intended to advise on policy, but it is intended to highlight and/or advise on the possibility of salient matters of concern or urgence to the Home secretary, pertaining to possible legislation. on the issues listed, based on evidence from those consulted(that I have already listed or given reference to), the report does no such thing.
    exactly - the Burns report wasn't made to judge the relevence of claims and counterclaims as to whether hunting should be banned - it was there to clarify and substantiate those claims.

    So why did you give this reply?
    All are reasons which justify a banning.
    not in the eyes of those consulted on the matter as part of the Burns report.
    Obviously the Burns report makes no such conclusion - and given that the cross section of people consulted consisted of pro-hunting people, anti-hunting people and impartial people presenting evidence - it seems a little rediculous to say that "those consulted by the Burns report" disagreed with any of those reasons justifying a banning - in fact most stakeholders consulted weren't asked those sorts of questions.

    Again please feel free to point out where a person consulted by the Burns report states that the reasons listed don't justify a ban.

    Alternatively don't claim things for other people without their consent (which I believe you just rebuked someone else for doing on your behalf)...if you don't feel those reasons justify a ban then fine - but to say that the consultation groups (which included people from the anti hunting lobby) agree with you and by association imply that the Burns report also agree with you when neither do anything of the sort and don't have a remit covering "valid reasons to impliment a ban". I doubt the anti-hunting consultees of the Burns report would appreciate your misrepresentation of their views.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    MORI interviewed 801 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain.
    Interviews were conducted by telephone on 14-15 July 1999.
    All data are weighted to the known profile of Great Britain.
    Where results do not sum to 100, this may be due to multiple responses, or the exclusion of don't knows/not stated.
    An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half of one percent, but not zero.
    Base = all unless otherwise stated.
    Research Study Conducted for The Mail on Sunday

    Q2 And now some questions about hunting wild mammals with dogs (eg fox hunting and stag hunting). To what extent do you support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in Britain?


    %
    Strongly support a ban 52
    Tend to support a ban 11
    Neither support nor oppose a ban 11
    Tend to oppose a ban 10
    Strongly oppose a ban 14
    Don't know/no opinion 2

    So there we are 63% strongly or tend to support a ban, 24% tend to oppose a ban. And 13% don't know or don't have an oppinion.
    surprisingly, as I predicted
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    exactly - the Burns report wasn't made to judge the relevence of claims and counterclaims as to whether hunting should be banned - it was there to clarify and substantiate those claims.

    So why did you give this reply?
    you just quoted the reason.

    Obviously the Burns report makes no such conclusion - and given that the cross section of people consulted consisted of pro-hunting people, anti-hunting people and impartial people presenting evidence - it seems a little rediculous to say that "those consulted by the Burns report" disagreed with any of those reasons justifying a banning - in fact most stakeholders consulted weren't asked those sorts of questions.
    thats both a pedantic and obstinate assessment of my statement. the intent and meaning of which has already been explained throughly in the previous post.

    Alternatively don't claim things for other people without their consent (which I believe you just rebuked someone else for doing on your behalf)...if you don't feel those reasons justify a ban then fine - but to say that the consultation groups (which included people from the anti hunting lobby) agree with you and by association imply that the Burns report also agree with you
    the Burns report and the material acquired in its assessment from those consulted, perceive no single issue to be grounds for explicit concern to the extent of legislation.

    when neither do anything of the sort and don't have a remit covering "valid reasons to impliment a ban". I doubt the anti-hunting consultees of the Burns report would appreciate your misrepresentation of their views.
    there was no misrepresentation.
 
 
 

1,079

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.