Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Fox hunting to be legalised if Tories win 2015 General Election Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhimsicalSloth)
    I'm not happy with any practices or sports, whether recreational or otherwise, which cause suffering to animals. To say that it is a 'tradition' is meaningless to me and not a valid excuse for causing the death of a creature. As far as I'm concerned, just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
    By this logic presumably you follow a vegan lifestyle (?)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Mink hunting is far more useful than fox hunting. Mink are evil monsters who kill for fun.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Disgraceful.

    It's not that I care that it is "elitist", it's just unbelievably cruel and totally unnecessary.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well since no one enforces the current law what difference will it make?

    Obviously I am against the traditional blood sport of fox hunting. It is no better than bull fighting. Just because it is carried out by a bunch of upper lipped toffs deosn't make it any less barbaric. They are scum that are no better than chavs that strap fireworks on cats. Honeslty, when people mindless make an animal suffer in inventive cruel ways I really get the urge to claw out their eyes and rip there limbs off. See how they like it.

    If foxes are a problem (and this can only be answered by impartial scientists) then shoot them or something else more humane.
    This is exactly true.

    Everyone is angered at the thought of chavs being cruel to animals (rightly so), but because of how the British have been conditioned, a "posh" person charging around on a horse, having dogs tear these animals apart is somehow palatable.


    If foxes are a danger to livestock, have a fence installed, it is that simple.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    So controlling the fox population at all is a no-go? Are farmers permitted to shoot, poison, trap or otherwise exterminate foxes and other creatures that threaten their livestock and crops?
    They can purchase electric fences and the like or use pesticides as they do for insects. Not being able to afford is no excuse, these people are subsidy junkies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)


    This is exactly true.


    I should get this response more often :hmmm:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    By this logic presumably you follow a vegan lifestyle (?)
    I became a vegan very recently although I was a vegetarian before then from about the age of 16. It took me a while to adjust though for familial reasons
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...-election.html

    What do people think about this then? Personally I see no reason to legalise fox hunting. What is there to be gained?
    I'm not really that into politics but don't they have more important things to be worrying about? (probably not I guess, knowing politicians)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    They can purchase electric fences and the like or use pesticides as they do for insects. Not being able to afford is no excuse, these people are subsidy junkies.
    This is what I hate about the British political right, they don't want capitalism, they want socialism, but just for themselves.


    Get rid of all the subsidies and buy food from whoever is able to produce it at the lowest cost; these people are terrified of free markets.


    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I should get this response more often :hmmm:
    No


    You are right 50% of the time, on social issues yes, but you need to get over this anarchism rubbish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhimsicalSloth)
    I became a vegan very recently although I was a vegetarian before then from about the age of 16. It took me a while to adjust though for familial reasons
    Could you not live your life how you wish to live it, and allow others who wish to live a different life live it their way?

    Out of interest. Are you an urban dweller or a rural dweller?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    This is what I hate about the British political right, they don't want capitalism, they want socialism, but just for themselves.

    That's what I've been saying.

    Oh and you're wrong 50% of the time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Could you not live your life how you wish to live it, and allow others who wish to live a different life live it their way?

    Out of interest. Are you an urban dweller or a rural dweller?
    Of course! I wouldn't consider myself to be the preachy type and I've never ordered anyone around about how to live their life or told them what they could or could not do.. I seriously hope that I haven't anyway! I'm even willing to hear different opinions on the matter as I like to be challenged. If someone asks though then I will voice my opinions. That's not to say that I think a person who disagrees with me is stupid or a bad person, I just disagree with them.

    At the moment I live in a rural area although my hometown is quite urban.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's what I've been saying.

    Oh and you're wrong 50% of the time.
    Not it isn't, you are against private property and competition.



    Nope, or else I would delegate my decision making to the toss of a coin
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhimsicalSloth)
    Of course! I wouldn't consider myself to be the preachy type and I've never ordered anyone around about how to live their life or told them what they could or could not do.. I seriously hope that I haven't anyway! I'm even willing to hear different opinions on the matter as I like to be challenged. If someone asks though then I will voice my opinions. That's not to say that I think a person who disagrees with me is stupid or a bad person, I just disagree with them.

    At the moment I live in a rural area although my hometown is quite urban.
    I ask because generally the most anti hint people I've met come from urban areas and have little to no understanding of country life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Let's stop you right here, who said anything about the foxes being eaten after being shot? They're shot because they're a pest, not to be eaten, much like swatting a fly.

    I was pointing out the thing that everybody seems to forget: the foxes will quite likely be killed anyway.



    As an aside, has anybody pointed out yet that the title isn't strictly true, it's an open vote and thus will probably remain banned since I would expect most of Labour and the Lib Dems will vote against it, and then probably enough Conservatives to not get the necessary majority?
    1) I made a logical distinction because killing for food is necessary, whereas hunting *as a sport* (not as a necessary objective of getting rid of pests) is not a necessary excuse to kill. if you're going to kill a fox, do it humanely, as I suggested with the example of killing animals for food.
    2) if there are empirical grounds for foxes to be culled for the purposes of pest-control, then there should be a presentation of that evidence for its legality. you can't just say "I want to kill foxes in a brutal fashion" because that's, again, unnecessary torture of innocent animals. if they need to be killed, they ought to be put down as lightly and as pain-free as possible, or else there's no line between killing animals and raping them - because, again, there's a law about that kind of thing. either we say in principle they're the same and the law on raping animals should logically be lifted, or they should both be illegal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I ask because generally the most anti hint people I've met come from urban areas and have little to no understanding of country life.
    That's fair enough and I do understand what you're saying. I think it's just the principle of the whole thing which disturbs me the most. I understand how important tradition and customs are to people but I don't see why the idea of adapting our habits around something should be so difficult.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhimsicalSloth)
    That's fair enough and I do understand what you're saying. I think it's just the principle of the whole thing which disturbs me the most. I understand how important tradition and customs are to people but I don't see why the idea of adapting our habits around something should be so difficult.
    The hunting ban had a seriously negative impact on the rural economy.

    The rural economy isn't based on niceties and fluffy animals.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    Not it isn't, you are against private property and competition.


    Yes it is. I've complained about that very thing. Socialism for the rich capitalism for everyone else. Sure it might be that I want actual socialism for everyone else rather than just exposing the parasitic mega rich to actual capitalism. I can agree with a right wingers diagnosis but then not agree with their cure. I'm in full agreement with the diagnosis.

    In some fairy cuckoo land where I can just magic a society into existence I am against certain forms of property. I agree with mutualism in that some ways of life are parasitical, unfair and exploitative like loans, investments, and rent since all these people do is move numbers around rather than actually doing anything. It is also these people that tend to benefit the most rather than those who actually do the work. I got nothing against personal property.

    But then I am a realist. This mutualist society may be an impossibility (I suspect it is) and could have undesirable consequences. I'm quite happy just implementing reformist polices that help the people who actually do the work in which case I am a social democrat who is absolutely fine with the concept of private property (even if I think it results in a lot of crap). Especially when pretty much every instance of a large scale attempt to get rid of private property has resulted in awful Orwellian dictatorships.

    Finally I'm not an anything. I don't like having to belong to anything. There are aspects of anarchism, socialism, libertarianism, capitalism that I agree with without actually subscribing to the entire thing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    How anyone can think it's okay to kill an animal for fun is beyond me. Blood sports are sickening and have no place in a modern, civilised society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The hunting ban had a seriously negative impact on the rural economy.

    The rural economy isn't based on niceties and fluffy animals.
    I may be wrong but I wouldn't say that it was serious. The act was passed by a large majority of MP's under a free vote following extensive debate over many years about its possible impact (in terms of unemployment).The Burns Report, that is the government committee who examines the pros and cons for hunting with hounds in the UK, has described hunting employment as 'almost invisible' by national standards, and those who were without jobs were given alternative help. For example, Defra's Rural Enterprise Scheme. They provide grant aid to help horse-based enterprises who are reliant upon hunting to evolve into tourism-focused businesses. Then there's the Rural Stress Information Network, the Citizen's Advice Bureaux etc.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    This is what I hate about the British political right, they don't want capitalism, they want socialism, but just for themselves.

    Get rid of all the subsidies and buy food from whoever is able to produce it at the lowest cost; these people are terrified of free markets.

    No

    You are right 50% of the time, on social issues yes, but you need to get over this anarchism rubbish.
    Thatcher and Major certainly steered clear. The Tory Party of today would certainly abolish CAP with a majority though, problem is that nobody else would because the result is that big business farms would gain market share while small farms would die. Great for the consumer and output would not be affected (Australia and the US have big business farming and subsidies around a third of ours) but bad for farmers and politically toxic.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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