Re: A few thoughts on hunting

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:04 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
<msaunby@despammed.com> wrote:

>Those who oppose hunting are quick to claim that the majority of the public
>want hunting banned. Fair enough, if that's the measure that matters, then
>let it be determined by a referendum. Otherwise stop making the damned
>stupid claim.

Don't be a silly billy. what next, let the pedophiles and cottagers
put it to the vote?

>The EU hasn't chosen to ban hunting - presumably they could if there was
>widespread support for such a ban in Europe. As far as I'm aware it hasn't
>even been seriously considered in France or Ireland.

Hunting was never the issue, it was always one of animal abuse. If you
need to hunt for food, is a world apart from abusing animals for
pleasure, as in fox hunting.

>British landowners don't have to allow hunting, yet many do. Clearly
>they're not part of this claimed anti-hunting majority.

Many landowners are intimidated and much hunting is on land where it's
not allowed.

>So at some level between what we as citizens of Europe are entitled to do,
>and what we as landowners are entitled to do, there is a desire from some
>to interfere in the matter of hunting.

Animal abuse, lets get it straight.

> What is there is in the way the UK
>is governed that says that this decision should be made in (the parish of?)
>Whitehall? Why not allow each parish, or shire perhaps, decide for itself?

No need to invoke such stupid democracy, the perverts would simply
move into your neighbourhood, and Devon would become known as the
pervs AND witchcraft capital of the UK. Besides Whitehall is more then
capabl;e on deciding such a blatant issue.

Animal abuse in this day and age is intolerable.
--

So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

	#1
Malcolm	Re: A few thoughts on hunting On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:04 +0100, "Michael Saunby" <msaunby@despammed.com> wrote: >Those who oppose hunting are quick to claim that the majority of the public >want hunting banned. Fair enough, if that's the measure that matters, then >let it be determined by a referendum. Otherwise stop making the damned >stupid claim. Don't be a silly billy. what next, let the pedophiles and cottagers put it to the vote? >The EU hasn't chosen to ban hunting - presumably they could if there was >widespread support for such a ban in Europe. As far as I'm aware it hasn't >even been seriously considered in France or Ireland. Hunting was never the issue, it was always one of animal abuse. If you need to hunt for food, is a world apart from abusing animals for pleasure, as in fox hunting. >British landowners don't have to allow hunting, yet many do. Clearly >they're not part of this claimed anti-hunting majority. Many landowners are intimidated and much hunting is on land where it's not allowed. >So at some level between what we as citizens of Europe are entitled to do, >and what we as landowners are entitled to do, there is a desire from some >to interfere in the matter of hunting. Animal abuse, lets get it straight. > What is there is in the way the UK >is governed that says that this decision should be made in (the parish of?) >Whitehall? Why not allow each parish, or shire perhaps, decide for itself? No need to invoke such stupid democracy, the perverts would simply move into your neighbourhood, and Devon would become known as the pervs AND witchcraft capital of the UK. Besides Whitehall is more then capabl;e on deciding such a blatant issue. Animal abuse in this day and age is intolerable. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\..