# Fox hunting vote 'killed off' by new generation of young urban Tory women opposed to



## Judgemental (14 August 2011)

Hello my dears, are you all summering well?

I could not help myself in posting the following from today's Mail on Sunday. I thought there's something for the New Young Intake on this forum to get their teeth into - if that is not a too-non-politically-correct phrase! 

Fox hunting vote 'killed off' by new generation of young urban Tory women opposed to bloodsports By Brendan Carlin, Mail on Sunday Political Reporter

Last updated at 3:46 PM on 14th August 2011

David Cameron&#8217;s pledge to hold a free vote on restoring fox-hunting was last night declared &#8216;dead and buried&#8217; by a new breed of modernising Tory MPs.
The so-called Blue Fox group of ambitious young urban Tories boasted that they had finally killed off any prospect of a Commons vote on reviving bloodsports before the next Election.

They claimed that because of their public opposition to a return to hunting, the Prime Minister would now drop any attempt to stage a vote in this Parliament.

And to the anger of party traditionalists, one of the new group &#8211; all elected to the Commons last year &#8211; even compared foxhunting to the barbaric medieval sport of bear-baiting.

Caroline Dinenage, 39, MP for Gosport in Hampshire, told The Mail on Sunday: &#8216;I don&#8217;t hold with the idea that just because it&#8217;s traditional we have to continue to do it. If that was the case, we&#8217;d still have bear-baiting and be sending small children up chimneys.&#8217;

But last night, pro-hunting MPs were furious with the Blue Foxes&#8217; claims and called on Mr Cameron to honour his pledge to hold the ballot.

In a surprise addition to the Coalition agreement last summer, the Government promised to stage a vote on whether to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs introduced by Labour in 2004.

The move came after Mr Cameron, a self-confessed &#8216;country boy&#8217; who grew up fishing and shooting rabbits, said the ban was a &#8216;mistake&#8217; and needed to be reversed.

Since then, No&#8201;10 has indicated that the free vote &#8211; whereby MPs vote according to their conscience rather than according to an official line set by their party &#8211; would be put off until next year at the earliest.

But last week, anti-hunting MPs insisted the idea of the Commons revisiting the hunt ban was doomed because, with 20 Tories openly opposed to it, the Prime Minister would never win the vote against overwhelming opposition from his Lib Dem Coalition partners and Labour MPs.

More...Tally ho-me on the range! Fox hunting gets the American treatment (but those coyotes sure are fast!) 
Hunt supporters out for traditional Christmas meetings... as David Cameron delays plan to repeal ban 

The Blue Fox group, many of whom are in Parliament merely due to Mr Cameron&#8217;s determination to give his party a modern face, insisted the Tories should no longer be identified with the &#8216;hunting, shooting and fishing&#8217; fraternity.

Mother-of-two Ms Dinenage, daughter of television presenter Fred Dinenage, said: &#8216;I was brought up in the Hampshire countryside but I just cannot justify hunting  animals to their death.&#8217;

Conservative MP for Hove Mike Weatherley, a former music-industry executive, said: &#8216;A lot of the new Tory intake at the Commons are Right-wing on economics and liberal on social issues. 

Blue Foxes: New intake Tory MPs, from left, Tracey Crouch, Esther McVey and Laura Sandys

I believe in free markets but I also believe in animal welfare and the most vulnerable in our society. I don&#8217;t think the party wants to open up the foxhunting debate given that a lot of the 2010 intake of Tory MPs have strong feelings against it.&#8217;

Mr Weatherley, who has appeared alongside rock star Brian May at an anti-hunting event, dismissed the bloodsport as &#8216;cruel and inhumane&#8217;.
Fellow Tory MP Tracey Crouch, 36, who won her Chatham and Aylesford seat from Labour at the last Election, said the anti-hunting views of colleagues was &#8216;a direct consequence of the success of the Tory Party, in that we now represent more urban areas and not just the rural countryside&#8217;.

Miss Crouch added: &#8216;The new  generation of Tory MPs reflects the views of the vast majority of the public who do not want to see foxhunting reintroduced.&#8217;

Her views were echoed by former television presenter Esther McVey, 43, MP for Wirral West, who said:  &#8216;I come from the great northern city of Liverpool and, given the way I have been brought up, I am not in favour of foxhunting. It&#8217;s the voice of inner-city conservatism.&#8217;

And Laura Sandys, another Tory who entered the Commons only last year as MP for South Thanet in Kent, said: &#8216;I am not part of any  formal group against foxhunting but I do not think we should be spending parliamentary time on this issue.&#8217;

No way back: 20 Tories have openly opposed the idea of the Commons revisiting the hunting ban introduced by Labour in 2004
Last night, however, pro-hunting Tories denied this was a &#8216;country versus town&#8217; debate.

Carmarthen MP Simon Hart, former chief executive of the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance, said: &#8216;If this was about country squires versus townies you wouldn&#8217;t have inner-city Labour MP Kate Hoey chairing the Countryside Alliance.&#8217;

Mr Hart angrily rebuked Ms Dinenage for comparing hunting to bear-baiting. He said: &#8216;That sort of remark is straight out of the animal-rights textbook. It is puerile and unbecoming of an MP to say that.&#8217;

He also made clear he expected the Prime Minister to honour the pledge for a free vote. 

Mr Hart, who denied anti-hunt predictions that most MPs opposed repealing the hunt ban, also said countryside-sports supporters were encouraged by Tony Blair&#8217;s admission in his biography that he had been wrong to introduce the ban.

The ex-Prime Minister wrote of how he &#8216;started to realise this wasn&#8217;t a small clique of weirdo inbreds delighting in cruelty but a tradition, embedded by history .&#8201;.&#8201;. that was integral to a way of life&#8217;.

Privately, though, some MPs sympathetic to hunting are keen to avoid any vote stirring up the issue on the basis that the ban laws introduced under Labour are so &#8216;shambolic&#8217; and full of holes that people are still able to hunt with hounds without much interference from the police.

Last night, a No&#8201;10 refused to give a firm timetable for the proposed Commons ballot on hunting.

A source said: &#8216;There will be a free vote at some stage, but there are other more urgent priorities for us to deal with.&#8217;


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-women-opposed-bloodsports.html#ixzz1V2KZtKQu


----------



## Alec Swan (15 August 2011)

J_M,

I'm sorry to have to tell you this,  but even were there a free vote,  the hunting ban will not be repealed.  Our ever more modern politician is ever more bland.  They're rather like the modern carrots,  which are now grown commercially,  in that if they taste of nothing,  then they will appeal to a wider market.

We all accept that the ban was wrong,  in all of its pillars,  and we will also accept that the prey,  be they an animal or a rural existence,  are those to have suffered.  I would that it was otherwise.  It isn't.

We now hunt within the law,  and sadly,  that's the best that we can hope for.  Whether I'm being a defeatist or a realist,  is for you to decide!!

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (15 August 2011)

Hello Alec,

Have not been on the forum for a while, but that's not to say I have not been following the proceedings.

I am just reporting what is being reported.

However I felt that the 'Blue Foxes' was a new an a novel description of the new entry to the House of Commons pack.

No doubt some old, well seasoned dog hounds will take them in hand and take them to the top of the mountain and show them the promised land.

Perhaps we should set ourselves up to in an educational role and Cameron would employ us on a vast salary, as Equine and Venery Consultants to the ladies of the Conservative Party.


----------



## Orangehorse (15 August 2011)

I hope some people send invitations to these MPs and take them hunting.  The shooting people, BASC, spend a good deal of time and money lobbying, entertaining and educating MPs and they have got a pledge that shooting will not be banned.  

I am quite happy about shooting, but I find it slightly strange that foxhunting is banned in which people are really only spectators following a pack of hounds, yet it is OK to be the person who pulls the trigger and does the killing themselves with a gun.  And a death by gun is not always the "clean shot" so desired by politicians, not by a long way.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (15 August 2011)

As much as I hate to say it I Doubt at present a free vote would give the result we all Crave so at present it is better to carry on as we presently have to, and I have no doubt that the policing of Hunting has dropped lower down the priority list with Police Cuts and Rioting. Also the enactment is dulling in peoples minds too so patience is required a little longer, before things get fully back to normal


----------



## irish_only (15 August 2011)

Not sure I'd ever believe anything that the Daily Mail print. They've probably got the name wrong too, more likely blue vixens

And another media twist. I watched the programme last night about Robbo and Banksy and their 'Street art' war. At the end of the programme it announced that Robbo, shortly after filming the programme, was attacked and is even now in a coma. Curiosity got the better of me and I googled him to find that he is out of hospital, it wasn't him that appeared on the programme etc


----------



## irish_only (15 August 2011)

Am off to google Hansard for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - about what they actually said, that is.


----------



## Echo Bravo (15 August 2011)

To be honest, I think to take it slowly and quietly, will bring hunting back. I don't like the few hotheaded ones shouting for a vote, which we will lose, if it came to a free vote and that could make things worse. If it was me I'd be slowly bringing in someone who loves hunting to replace these ones that don't. And I no longer buy or read the Daily Mail, if I do buy a paper I get the Dailt Telegraph, better racing page.


----------



## Rosie Round The Hills (15 August 2011)

Echo Bravo said:



			To be honest, I think to take it slowly and quietly, will bring hunting back.
		
Click to expand...

This.

I think it's an poor act, resulting in almost unenforceable law but it won't be REPEALED (capitals intended) because of the loud media political backlash, but it will most likely be 'updated', overwritten, revised, and otherwise altered until it becomes as obsolete as bales of hay in the back of london taxis.


----------



## Judgemental (15 August 2011)

JackyandRosie said:



			This.

I think it's an poor act, resulting in almost unenforceable law but it won't be REPEALED (capitals intended) because of the loud media political backlash, but it will most likely be 'updated', overwritten, revised, and otherwise altered until it becomes as obsolete as bales of hay in the back of london taxis.
		
Click to expand...

Might I suggest you are referring to the specific part of the Act that  provides for amendment via Statutory Instrument:

14 Subordinate legislation.

An order of the Secretary of State under this Act

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument,.

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,.

(c) may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,.

(d) may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and

(e) may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision..


----------



## EAST KENT (15 August 2011)

There now..should have known better than to bother voting..liers the lot of them,like any committee.


----------



## Echo Bravo (16 August 2011)

Judgemental, me head is starting to spin, where has commonsense gone.No wonder we never move on, para 1/a, para 2/3gb, what a waste on time and money, that nobody understands no even the lawyers


----------



## Judgemental (16 August 2011)

Echo Bravo said:



			Judgemental, me head is starting to spin, where has commonsense gone.No wonder we never move on, para 1/a, para 2/3gb, what a waste on time and money, that nobody understands no even the lawyers

Click to expand...

Echo you are so right.

Some on this site will recall that I have been banging on about the Search and Seizure element of the act in the past, but for those who have not heard me on the subject.... 

A Statutory Instrument, which was incorporated in the act by the Labour Party in order to tighten the rules, if they deemed necessary, can be used equally to loosen the legislation. The Secretary of State can quite easily arrange this, even with the existing parliamentary composition.

Those who know me know there is one part of the act that really gets me going.....

Section 8 the last sentence Item 6 "that a Police Office does not need a warrant". That is the most unjust element and should be changed by Statutory Instrument.

Somebody tell me what other legislation allows a Police Officer to enter land or premises etc without a warrant? I am not aware of any......

*8 Search and Seizure *
(1)This section applies where a constable reasonably suspects that a person (&#8220;the suspect&#8221 is committing or has committed an offence under Part 1 of this Act.

(2)If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the suspect, the constable may stop the suspect and search him.

(3)If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on or in a vehicle, animal or other thing of which the suspect appears to be in possession or control, the constable may stop and search the vehicle, animal or other thing.

(4)A constable may seize and detain a vehicle, animal or other thing if he reasonably believes that&#8212;.
(a)it may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for an offence under Part 1 of this Act, or.
(b)it may be made the subject of an order under section 9.

(5)For the purposes of exercising a power under this section a constable may enter&#8212;.

(a)land;.
(b) premises other than a dwelling;.
(c)a vehicle..

*(6)The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant..*


----------



## Alec Swan (17 August 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Somebody tell me what other legislation allows a Police Officer to enter land or premises etc without a warrant? I am not aware of any......
		
Click to expand...

I may well be wrong on this point,  but I suspect that your mistake is to lump *Land* and *Premises* together.

It's my understanding that a warrant is necessary for any search of a premises,  that being a dwelling or buildings,  or an area with such a description. 

In the case of Trading Standards officers,  or the Police,  land may be entered at any time providing that they have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed.

In the case of livestock farmers,  for instance,  the RSPCA have no right of entry,  unless accompanied by a serving Police officer,  or another government employee.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (17 August 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			I may well be wrong on this point,  but I suspect that your mistake is to lump *Land* and *Premises* together.

It's my understanding that a warrant is necessary for any search of a premises,  that being a dwelling or buildings,  or an area with such a description. 

In the case of Trading Standards officers,  or the Police,  land may be entered at any time providing that they have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed.

In the case of livestock farmers,  for instance,  the RSPCA have no right of entry,  unless accompanied by a serving Police officer,  or another government employee.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec this is the whole thrust of my argument and I have quoted directly from the act: 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

I recommend that anybody who hunts reads each clause of the act very carefully, because there are elements that can be emasculated using a Statutory Instrument. However our governace will not go down that road, they want all out repeal or nothing.

However on your point you will see the Act refers to PREMISES 

To my mind that means Hunt Kennels (I know for certain that is what the Labour law officers intended) and as far as I am concerned, a Police Officer should be required to have a warrant to enter any kennels or stables. Especially as Hunt Staff live in the very immediate vicinity.

I have been banging on about this since 2004 and nobody will take any notice, I wonder if the Tory Ladies - the Blue Foxes of the Conservative Party are aware of the fact a warrant is not required and whether that is compatable with their policies.


----------



## Herne (17 August 2011)

And has it not occurred to you that what seems so blindingly obvious to you is also equally as obvious to the great and the good within the hunting world - and that therefore, if they have rejected that approach, there is possibly good reason to have done so?

What is done by Statutory Instrument is just as easily undone by Statutory Instrument. 

Repeal of an Act of Parliament in its entireity is a simple business. One line of text is all that is needed. (Getting MPs to vote for it is another matter of course).

Rebanning after repeal on the other hand would be just as complicated as passing the first Ban, with every Clause, Line and Ammendment requiring endless debate in both Houses - and it is unlikely that the Labour Party would have the will for it, seeing the total lack of support that the Act gained them compared to the amount of support that it afforded their opponents.


----------



## Judgemental (17 August 2011)

Herne said:



			And has it not occurred to you that what seems so blindingly obvious to you is also equally as obvious to the great and the good within the hunting world - and that therefore, if they have rejected that approach, there is possibly good reason to have done so?
		
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness me, 'the great and the good'.

Those are words and a phrase that has been rehearsed to me all my life, along with, "don't worry about a thing (dear boy), it will be all alright". (Now too mature to be "dear boy")

I have reached the point where, 'something is better than nothing'.


----------



## Fiagai (18 August 2011)

For references (blue) foxes now have access to the internet...

http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/2011/08/

..bit of an oxymoron tbh


----------



## Judgemental (18 August 2011)

Fiagai said:



			For references (blue) foxes now have access to the internet...

http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/2011/08/

..bit of an oxymoron tbh
		
Click to expand...

Fiagai that is a very helpful authority and it is interesting to see the posts.

Now it is very simple, how matters are/should now dealt with by the MFHA and others, so please pay attention.

Section 6 of the Act under Seizure and Search has to be changed from:

(6)The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant..

to: (6)The exercise of a power under this section requires a warrant..

All that has to happen is that the words "does not" are removed under Statutory Instrument.

That would effectively emasculate the act because as things stand, a Police Officer is technically meant to follow hounds looking for an offence to be committed.

If those two words are ommitted, then the Police Constable stays in his nice warm Police Station and waits for somebody to make a complaint. Then and only then, is the alleged offence investigated. Need I say more as to the effectiveness.

Turning to these ladies of the Conservative Party, who I suspect are solely aiming to promote their ambitions and careers, by getting themsleves noticed.

If anybody where to oppose change the wording of section six, they would be flying in the fact of Tory party policy on policing. Coupled of course to all those Liberal and Labour supporters of the freedom of the individual etc. 

That little change would rattle through both the House of Commons and Lords like a pack of hounds in full cry.

But will our governance take heed and listen, who knows. They had better be seen to do something before the 2011 Opening Meets.

I am fairly confident in my mind that the majority would say, "Ok it's obvious we don't stand much of chance of a repeal but it's satisfactory to know a Police Officer can no longer enter Hunt Kennels or indeed land without a Magistrates Warrant".


----------



## Judgemental (8 September 2011)

I am delighted to see that Horse and Hound Administration in the form of  Flora_watkins@ipcmedia.com have recognised the escalating problems and are asking hunts and posters on this forum to contact her, because she is doing a piece on &#8216;Trouble with Antis&#8217;.

Well of course there is going to be trouble with Antis - so called Hunt Monitors and Sabs, so long as nothing it done to amend Section 8 of The Hunting Act 2004.

Furthermore, they the Sabs, think the police are automatically on their side and that Members of Parliament are conniving with the Sabs in the variety of contrived incidents that are occurring. Then of course there is going to be trouble.

The whole situation is very one sided and hunting people are their own worst enemy because matters will get worse.

I am constantly told, "oh leave it as it is, it's working just fine". It's not!

Antis, Hunt Monitors and Sabs etc will not be satisfied until they have eliminated all forms of hunting.

They have a clear agenda to contrive incidents, for example, releasing foxes in front of hounds etc.

Tell the movers and shakers, the great and the good, the MFHA and associated bodies to do something and not just sit back and hope for it to all go away.


----------



## Keith Marshall (20 September 2011)

It seems to me the Blue Foxes are a symptom of a steady trend, more than anything.


----------

