SNP - More Hypocrisy/Opportunism! - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

SNP - More Hypocrisy/Opportunism!

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

johnno42000 14 Jul 15 3.24pm
Animals need to unite and show a bit of attitude. Imagine if the foxes, hounds and horses got together on the morning of a hunt and chased the t***s in red coats into their homes, smashed through the windows and ripped them to pieces. Revenge would be very sweet. 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

14 Jul 15 3.24pm

Animals need to unite and show a bit of attitude. Imagine if the foxes, hounds and horses got together on the morning of a hunt and chased the t***s in red coats into their homes, smashed through the windows and ripped them to pieces. Revenge would be very sweet.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 14 Jul 15 3.38pm
Quote johnfirewall at 14 Jul 2015 3.01pm Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.26am This one's winding me up a bit. They are NOT voting on re-legalising fox hunting. The change is that, when a fox is to be shot humanely for pest control purposes (still completely legal), they may currently use a maximum of two dogs to flush the foxes into the open where they can be shot. The argument is that this is pretty inefficient, particularly in woodland, and they would like to increase the number of dogs allowed to be used to flush the foxes (I guess the more dogs means the foxes are less able to dodge them and hide). The change is simply to the number of dogs allowed to be used in the process - this is not about fox hunting as most people (myself included) understand the term - it's not toffs in red coats chasing them across fields shouting "view haloo" and blowing horns, it's a bloke with a rifle undertaking pest control to control populations. All seems intentionally emotive to me. It's no different from shooting rabbits - of course you can argue the rights and wrongs of pest control, but it's nothing to do with "proper fox hunting". There was even a bloke on Radio 4 the other day who was an ex-bigwig in the League Against Cruel Sports saying it was fine. Hardly a surprise that people are getting worked up about something that isn't happening or that they don't understand. It happens daily on Facebook and upon illustrating the error one becomes a proponent of the imaginary unpopular proposal. Have you got a link detailing what is actually (not) being voted on? I'm on the fence in that it is a form of pest control, where legal and arguably less humane forms are practiced, which leaves me open to that argument too, were I to dare bring up the substance of the proposal. Edited by johnfirewall (14 Jul 2015 3.02pm) Because it is in The Guardian, it will be dismissed by some but this link shows what was going to be voted on. [Link] It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Alert a moderator to this post

topcat

Holmesdale / Surbiton 14 Jul 15 3.38pm

Quote johnfirewall at 14 Jul 2015 3.01pm

Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.26am

This one's winding me up a bit.

They are NOT voting on re-legalising fox hunting. The change is that, when a fox is to be shot humanely for pest control purposes (still completely legal), they may currently use a maximum of two dogs to flush the foxes into the open where they can be shot. The argument is that this is pretty inefficient, particularly in woodland, and they would like to increase the number of dogs allowed to be used to flush the foxes (I guess the more dogs means the foxes are less able to dodge them and hide).

The change is simply to the number of dogs allowed to be used in the process - this is not about fox hunting as most people (myself included) understand the term - it's not toffs in red coats chasing them across fields shouting "view haloo" and blowing horns, it's a bloke with a rifle undertaking pest control to control populations.

All seems intentionally emotive to me. It's no different from shooting rabbits - of course you can argue the rights and wrongs of pest control, but it's nothing to do with "proper fox hunting". There was even a bloke on Radio 4 the other day who was an ex-bigwig in the League Against Cruel Sports saying it was fine.

Hardly a surprise that people are getting worked up about something that isn't happening or that they don't understand. It happens daily on Facebook and upon illustrating the error one becomes a proponent of the imaginary unpopular proposal.

Have you got a link detailing what is actually (not) being voted on?

I'm on the fence in that it is a form of pest control, where legal and arguably less humane forms are practiced, which leaves me open to that argument too, were I to dare bring up the substance of the proposal.

Edited by johnfirewall (14 Jul 2015 3.02pm)

Because it is in The Guardian, it will be dismissed by some but this link shows what was going to be voted on. [Link]

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 14 Jul 15 3.43pm
Quote johnfirewall at 14 Jul 2015 3.01pm Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.26am This one's winding me up a bit. They are NOT voting on re-legalising fox hunting. The change is that, when a fox is to be shot humanely for pest control purposes (still completely legal), they may currently use a maximum of two dogs to flush the foxes into the open where they can be shot. The argument is that this is pretty inefficient, particularly in woodland, and they would like to increase the number of dogs allowed to be used to flush the foxes (I guess the more dogs means the foxes are less able to dodge them and hide). The change is simply to the number of dogs allowed to be used in the process - this is not about fox hunting as most people (myself included) understand the term - it's not toffs in red coats chasing them across fields shouting "view haloo" and blowing horns, it's a bloke with a rifle undertaking pest control to control populations. All seems intentionally emotive to me. It's no different from shooting rabbits - of course you can argue the rights and wrongs of pest control, but it's nothing to do with "proper fox hunting". There was even a bloke on Radio 4 the other day who was an ex-bigwig in the League Against Cruel Sports saying it was fine. Hardly a surprise that people are getting worked up about something that isn't happening or that they don't understand. It happens daily on Facebook and upon illustrating the error one becomes a proponent of the imaginary unpopular proposal. Have you got a link detailing what is actually (not) being voted on? I'm on the fence in that it is a form of pest control, where legal and arguably less humane forms are practiced, which leaves me open to that argument too, were I to dare bring up the substance of the proposal. Edited by johnfirewall (14 Jul 2015 3.02pm) [Link] "In the past decade, hunts in England and Wales have been able to flush out foxes and certain other animals for pest control purposes as long as they are shot as quickly as possible. However, unlike in Scotland, they are limited to using two hounds which critics say is an anomaly which needs to be corrected."
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 14 Jul 15 3.43pm

Quote johnfirewall at 14 Jul 2015 3.01pm

Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.26am

This one's winding me up a bit.

Have you got a link detailing what is actually (not) being voted on?

Edited by johnfirewall (14 Jul 2015 3.02pm)

[Link]

"In the past decade, hunts in England and Wales have been able to flush out foxes and certain other animals for pest control purposes as long as they are shot as quickly as possible.
However, unlike in Scotland, they are limited to using two hounds which critics say is an anomaly which needs to be corrected."

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 14 Jul 15 3.50pm
Quote Harry Beever at 14 Jul 2015 12.11pm Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.46am Quote johnno42000 at 14 Jul 2015 11.41am Ban fox hunting........then train the foxes to do the hunting and have rat hunting instead. Everybody's happy. It's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? Kill foxes - bad Kill rabbits - OK Kill rats - positively encouraged I just get nervous because I do love a bit of fishing (and even when fishing with the kids, one of whom is only 7 and has been vegetarian for over a year though nobody else in the house is, so has pretty strong views - "is this cruel, Dad?" is a tough question, which I normally avoid by passing the sweets and biscuits round). I agree. There's an overwhelming emotive rhetoric that a dog killing a fox is horrendous and should be stopped but no one shoots their cat after its taken 20 minutes to kill a bird or mouse. Admittedly it's a bit weird getting dressed up and chasing the dogs around on horseback but in essence it's about a dog killing a wild animal. Whether people should have made a sport out of it is open to question but I don't think it's a huge leap to compare it to a fish on the end of a line and I'm surprised fishing doesn't get more grief. I guess they're less furry and cute looking and I guess most of them are eaten, but in theory hunting is supposed to help control the fox population. Not a particularly nice way to die but I'd say favourable to poison or gangrene a few days later after a misplaced shot that's failed to kill. If we ate them I think we'd be alright, but the vast majority are not eaten (catch and release coarse fishing). Exception being trout, and a significant number of sea species, but most angling for recreation in this country does not result in the fish being eaten (which is handy, or I'd have long since starved). The cat/bird thing also gets my goat - I had a cat fishing in my fish pond regularly and occasionally getting lucky and nabbing a goldfish. Ask a cat owner and it's just "doing what comes naturally" - but you soon see them change their tune if you threaten to allow your dog into their garden to do what comes naturally to the cat! On top of that, anglers are (I accept I'm biased) exceptionally good caretakers for their environment - caring for fish populations, improving, cleaning, and generally looking after waters in their care for the good of angler and wildlife alike, so they do at least put something back (other than the fish). But I agree, I fear it's only a matter of time before they come after us in one way or another.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 14 Jul 15 3.50pm

Quote Harry Beever at 14 Jul 2015 12.11pm

Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.46am

Quote johnno42000 at 14 Jul 2015 11.41am

Ban fox hunting........then train the foxes to do the hunting and have rat hunting instead. Everybody's happy.

It's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it?
Kill foxes - bad
Kill rabbits - OK
Kill rats - positively encouraged

I just get nervous because I do love a bit of fishing (and even when fishing with the kids, one of whom is only 7 and has been vegetarian for over a year though nobody else in the house is, so has pretty strong views - "is this cruel, Dad?" is a tough question, which I normally avoid by passing the sweets and biscuits round).

I agree. There's an overwhelming emotive rhetoric that a dog killing a fox is horrendous and should be stopped but no one shoots their cat after its taken 20 minutes to kill a bird or mouse. Admittedly it's a bit weird getting dressed up and chasing the dogs around on horseback but in essence it's about a dog killing a wild animal. Whether people should have made a sport out of it is open to question but I don't think it's a huge leap to compare it to a fish on the end of a line and I'm surprised fishing doesn't get more grief. I guess they're less furry and cute looking and I guess most of them are eaten, but in theory hunting is supposed to help control the fox population. Not a particularly nice way to die but I'd say favourable to poison or gangrene a few days later after a misplaced shot that's failed to kill.

If we ate them I think we'd be alright, but the vast majority are not eaten (catch and release coarse fishing). Exception being trout, and a significant number of sea species, but most angling for recreation in this country does not result in the fish being eaten (which is handy, or I'd have long since starved).

The cat/bird thing also gets my goat - I had a cat fishing in my fish pond regularly and occasionally getting lucky and nabbing a goldfish. Ask a cat owner and it's just "doing what comes naturally" - but you soon see them change their tune if you threaten to allow your dog into their garden to do what comes naturally to the cat!

On top of that, anglers are (I accept I'm biased) exceptionally good caretakers for their environment - caring for fish populations, improving, cleaning, and generally looking after waters in their care for the good of angler and wildlife alike, so they do at least put something back (other than the fish). But I agree, I fear it's only a matter of time before they come after us in one way or another.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 14 Jul 15 5.03pm
Today's vote has been cancelled now anyway.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 14 Jul 15 5.03pm

Today's vote has been cancelled now anyway.

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 14 Jul 15 5.06pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Jul 2015 12.34pm The thread title and main bone of contention is the SNP hypocrisy and opportunism. Discuss. Why is anybody surprised about the antics of the SNP ? They were always going to try and cause problems for the Government at every opportunity.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 14 Jul 15 5.06pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Jul 2015 12.34pm

The thread title and main bone of contention is the SNP hypocrisy and opportunism.

Discuss.

Why is anybody surprised about the antics of the SNP ?
They were always going to try and cause problems for the Government at every opportunity.

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 14 Jul 15 5.13pm
Quote Willo at 14 Jul 2015 5.06pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Jul 2015 12.34pm The thread title and main bone of contention is the SNP hypocrisy and opportunism. Discuss. Why is anybody surprised about the antics of the SNP ? They were always going to try and cause problems for the Government at every opportunity. Well the Government have a majority, albeit a small one, so it will be a good test of how well managed the Tory back benchers are.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 14 Jul 15 5.13pm

Quote Willo at 14 Jul 2015 5.06pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Jul 2015 12.34pm

The thread title and main bone of contention is the SNP hypocrisy and opportunism.

Discuss.

Why is anybody surprised about the antics of the SNP ?
They were always going to try and cause problems for the Government at every opportunity.

Well the Government have a majority, albeit a small one, so it will be a good test of how well managed the Tory back benchers are.

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 14 Jul 15 5.14pm
Quote topcat at 14 Jul 2015 3.38pm Quote johnfirewall at 14 Jul 2015 3.01pm Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.26am This one's winding me up a bit. They are NOT voting on re-legalising fox hunting. The change is that, when a fox is to be shot humanely for pest control purposes (still completely legal), they may currently use a maximum of two dogs to flush the foxes into the open where they can be shot. The argument is that this is pretty inefficient, particularly in woodland, and they would like to increase the number of dogs allowed to be used to flush the foxes (I guess the more dogs means the foxes are less able to dodge them and hide). The change is simply to the number of dogs allowed to be used in the process - this is not about fox hunting as most people (myself included) understand the term - it's not toffs in red coats chasing them across fields shouting "view haloo" and blowing horns, it's a bloke with a rifle undertaking pest control to control populations. All seems intentionally emotive to me. It's no different from shooting rabbits - of course you can argue the rights and wrongs of pest control, but it's nothing to do with "proper fox hunting". There was even a bloke on Radio 4 the other day who was an ex-bigwig in the League Against Cruel Sports saying it was fine. Hardly a surprise that people are getting worked up about something that isn't happening or that they don't understand. It happens daily on Facebook and upon illustrating the error one becomes a proponent of the imaginary unpopular proposal. Have you got a link detailing what is actually (not) being voted on? I'm on the fence in that it is a form of pest control, where legal and arguably less humane forms are practiced, which leaves me open to that argument too, were I to dare bring up the substance of the proposal. Edited by johnfirewall (14 Jul 2015 3.02pm) Because it is in The Guardian, it will be dismissed by some but this link shows what was going to be voted on. [Link] Strugging to see the point of changing anything, but struggling even more to see The Guardian's point in implying legal hunts wouldn't use a shotgun with children around and therefore must just be having the regulation 2 dogs kill the fox.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

14 Jul 15 5.14pm

Quote topcat at 14 Jul 2015 3.38pm

Quote johnfirewall at 14 Jul 2015 3.01pm

Quote npn at 14 Jul 2015 11.26am

This one's winding me up a bit.

Have you got a link detailing what is actually (not) being voted on?

Edited by johnfirewall (14 Jul 2015 3.02pm)

Because it is in The Guardian, it will be dismissed by some but this link shows what was going to be voted on. [Link]

Strugging to see the point of changing anything, but struggling even more to see The Guardian's point in implying legal hunts wouldn't use a shotgun with children around and therefore must just be having the regulation 2 dogs kill the fox.

Alert a moderator to this post

Fatherken 14 Jul 15 5.43pm
just proves that as we know the torys are a party for the rich as it is only the rich that can afford fox hunting. As for surgeon changng her mind, she is a politician none of them tell you the truth
Alert a moderator to this post

Fatherken

14 Jul 15 5.43pm

just proves that as we know the torys are a party for the rich as it is only the rich that can afford fox hunting. As for surgeon changng her mind, she is a politician none of them tell you the truth

Alert a moderator to this post

bilbo 14 Jul 15 6.04pm
Helping stop animals being ripped apart isn't a bad thing in my book. Especially since most people in England abhor fox hunting anyway. That said this was obviously a 'trap' designed to lure SNP from their 'we won't vote on English things' position and they walked right into it. Edited by bilbo (14 Jul 2015 6.13pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

bilbo

14 Jul 15 6.04pm

Helping stop animals being ripped apart isn't a bad thing in my book. Especially since most people in England abhor fox hunting anyway.

That said this was obviously a 'trap' designed to lure SNP from their 'we won't vote on English things' position and they walked right into it.

Edited by bilbo (14 Jul 2015 6.13pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 14 Jul 15 6.36pm
Quote Fatherken at 14 Jul 2015 5.43pm just proves that as we know the torys are a party for the rich as it is only the rich that can afford fox hunting. As for surgeon changng her mind, she is a politician none of them tell you the truth Gonna try t answer this. I am a city boy Norwood born and bred. But I live in the country now and have before,and funnily enough I am in 2 minds about hunting with Hounds. Country people class Foxes as a pest,which they are. But my main gripe with your post is "it's just for posh people". Erm no it's not.you get all walks of life hunting,that;s without the "working class" people who look after the hounds and the horses. But many un posh people hunt aswell,in fact I would say they outnumber the "posh people". But as I said I am in 2 minds about it. But wee Jimmy Krankie is just trying to be clever got f*** all to do with hunting,as said on this thread,Scotland have no restrictions on the amunt of hounds used. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 14 Jul 15 6.36pm

Quote Fatherken at 14 Jul 2015 5.43pm

just proves that as we know the torys are a party for the rich as it is only the rich that can afford fox hunting. As for surgeon changng her mind, she is a politician none of them tell you the truth

Gonna try t answer this.
I am a city boy Norwood born and bred.
But I live in the country now and have before,and funnily enough I am in 2 minds about hunting with Hounds.
Country people class Foxes as a pest,which they are.
But my main gripe with your post is "it's just for posh people".
Erm no it's not.you get all walks of life hunting,that;s without the "working class" people who look after the hounds and the horses.
But many un posh people hunt aswell,in fact I would say they outnumber the "posh people".

But as I said I am in 2 minds about it.
But wee Jimmy Krankie is just trying to be clever got f*** all to do with hunting,as said on this thread,Scotland have no restrictions on the amunt of hounds used.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

suicideatselhurst crawley 14 Jul 15 7.24pm
Quote elgrande at 14 Jul 2015 6.36pm Quote Fatherken at 14 Jul 2015 5.43pm just proves that as we know the torys are a party for the rich as it is only the rich that can afford fox hunting. As for surgeon changng her mind, she is a politician none of them tell you the truth Gonna try t answer this. I am a city boy Norwood born and bred. But I live in the country now and have before,and funnily enough I am in 2 minds about hunting with Hounds. Country people class Foxes as a pest,which they are. But my main gripe with your post is "it's just for posh people". Erm no it's not.you get all walks of life hunting,that;s without the "working class" people who look after the hounds and the horses. But many un posh people hunt aswell,in fact I would say they outnumber the "posh people". But as I said I am in 2 minds about it. But wee Jimmy Krankie is just trying to be clever got f*** all to do with hunting,as said on this thread,Scotland have no restrictions on the amunt of hounds used. Very true Theres someone in my head ... But its not me X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)
Alert a moderator to this post

suicideatselhurst

crawley 14 Jul 15 7.24pm

Quote elgrande at 14 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote Fatherken at 14 Jul 2015 5.43pm

just proves that as we know the torys are a party for the rich as it is only the rich that can afford fox hunting. As for surgeon changng her mind, she is a politician none of them tell you the truth

Very true

Theres someone in my head ... But its not me

X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

SNP - More Hypocrisy/Opportunism!

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors