# Is it me?



## severnmiles (9 August 2006)

Or have the quality of the posts in here recently deteriorated?

I can't even be bothered to read them anymore.

It's a shame.


----------



## Rachael_jack (9 August 2006)

I was thinking the exact same thing! i can never be bothered to post anymore as all the post seem silly childish jokes between other members. 

It is a shame..


----------



## Nigel (9 August 2006)

This is a hunting debate forum, trouble is there is no opposition. Then why not take the piss out of your opponents?

Cheers &amp; Chuckles

Nigel


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

You and me both.  It's sunk into deep puerile.  Oh well, at least I can busy myself at work.....

RS


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

You know, life seems different now that I'm not arguing with you.......


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

If you want to debate RS then we'd be pleased to.  The trouble is the current antis on here refuse to enter into one.

What do you think about the leagues insistence that lines of guns are used during flushing out?  Do you agree with that?


----------



## severnmiles (9 August 2006)

Lol!  Hmmm...we did have some hum dingers....ting, ting, round 2! 

These stupid names that are flooding the HD are also very tedious!


----------



## severnmiles (9 August 2006)

No, I don't (I know that question wasn't aimed at me!), that is slaughter, the fox has no 'sporting chance', just because there are a number of guns does not mean that there is any less of a chance that the fox will be injured and not killed outright.  It is also not sorting the wheat from the chaff, perfectly healthy, strong, young foxes will be killed so it is not maintaining a healthy population.  If you flush a vixen that is running milk in March, does the same rule apply?  Does she have to be shot?  If so her cubs will starve to death.


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

"What do you think about the leagues insistence that lines of guns are used during flushing out? Do you agree with that? "

Is that what the league actually said ?  Sorry, I didnt follow that court case word for word.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

Quite severnmiles.  It's a no brainer really perhaps it's hard to get a debate going on this issue because it's so obvious that the law has got it wrong.

What do you think RS


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

What is the purpose of flushing and shooting foxes ?


----------



## Sooty (9 August 2006)

I think part of the problem is that the debate is getting a bit threadbare. Everything that can be said about hunting and the rights/wrongs thereof has been said many times, there is very little new ground to go over. Some members just cannot seem to post without being personally insulting, which is why I now spend less time in this forum. It used to be a lively place, now there seems to be more petty squabbling and point scoring.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

Flushing is to get them out of cover, shooting is to kill them.

It's the same with deer, but I'd like to see the hunt being allowed to choose not to shoot certain deer.  For example just kill older stags and let the hinds go at certain times of the year.  I think it's wrong that they have to kill everything they flush.   

Moreover just knowingly allowing dogs to flush out animals is illegal.  This precludes my activities as I know my dogs will flush out animals if I let them loose in the woods.  As I have no intent to kill I don't think what I do should be classed as hunting.


----------



## Sooty (9 August 2006)

Now that has made me chuckle!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

I do realise it's funny and I'm glad you find it so.

Wow 18288 posts!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

I think that there's a lot of talk about respect for the law.  But when you point out all the things it stupidly makes illegal people will just say not to worry because you won't get prosecuted for that.

So if you think the law is stupid then don't obey it and if they think it's stupid too then they won't apply it.

Which is fine, but where's the respect for the law in all of this?

A good law makes only the thing it wants to ban illegal nothing else the Hunting Act fails to do this.  It should be replaced with a law banning cruelty to wild animals.


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

Why do you want to kill them ?


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

Very very true !

RS


----------



## Sooty (9 August 2006)

Ah, now you know why!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

Personally, I don't want to kill wild mammals with my dogs which is why I feel that if I'm not trying to kill them what I do shouldn't be classed as hunting.


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

"why I feel that if I'm not trying to kill them what I do shouldn't be classed as hunting. "

Well tough.  The law would seem to say that you cant do that. Live with it.  The law prohibits lots of things that I'd like to do.  I want to do them, so why should they be classed as illegal ?  Bottom line.. they are, and I have to live with it.  You have to live with it too.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

What I'm trying to do RS is to engage you in a debate about whether the law is right, whether it should be obeyed and whether it should be enforced.

In my case neither of the latter is happening.

I'd like to know if in your opinion it is right for the law to demand that these animals are shot.  

I think it's wrong, if I don't want to shoot them I shouldn't have to and I shouldn't have to stop my dogs dispersing deer as long as I stop them from chasing.


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

"I'd like to know if in your opinion it is right for the law to demand that these animals are shot. "

I dont read the hunting act as demanding that animals be shot.  It permits you to use dogs if you need to shoot them.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

So what are my options, either I stop taking my dogs round my own wood because I know they will flush out deer, or I shoot the deer.

If forced I would choose the latter although I'd rather not.  It wouldn't be tough on me, it would be damned inconvenient and rather upsetting, it would be very tough on the deer.

Why can't I just stop the dogs chasing the deer when they get flushed out?


----------



## S_N (9 August 2006)

SImply from the title I was tempted to say "Yes, it's just you"!  However, as I rarely ever come in here - you lot can be scarey when you get going - I cannot really comment  (Inserts HUGE cheesey grin)


----------



## severnmiles (9 August 2006)

Scary??  I find this home!  Ahhhhh.  Now the Soapbox....that IS scary!  :smirk:


----------



## S_N (9 August 2006)

PMSL!!!!  You are more of a natural debator than I am - I just get frustrated/peed off/upset when I can't get my point across......  Hence why I don't really enter into some of 'those'] posts in the soapbox!!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

So do you think it should be illegal to flush out deer with a dog if you stop the dog from chasing the deer and don't shoot it?


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

The wording of the present law suggests to me that using dogs to flush animals if there is no requirement to shoot them is illegal.  If you feel that this is unfair, I suggest you lobby your MP or use pressure groups to campaign for a change in the wording of the law.  At present, whether you like it or not, wehter you think it's fair or not, flushing animals in the context you describe would appear to be illegal.  I suggest you keep your dogs under better control.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

I do keep my dogs under control.  That's got nothing to do with stopping them flushing out deer.  I stop the dogs chasing the deer.  I don't really know what else can reasonably be expected of me.  They are my woods if I take the bdogs through them it's innevitable that the will flush out deer.  This is becayuse deer are frightened of dogs and will run out of the woods if they realise there are dogs in them.

I'm trying to find out if you agree with this aspect of the law RS it's a simple question and you are refusing to answer it.

So do you think it should be illegal to flush out deer with a dog if you stop the dog from chasing the deer and don't shoot it? 

I'm sorry to repeat myself but you are not answering the question.


----------



## flying_change (9 August 2006)

"you are not answering the question"

That's because I think you're logic-chopping to an absurd degree.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

It's completely clear that you don't think what I do should be illegal.  It's a shame you can't admit it.  Then we could move on with the debate.  I have to say I am dissapointed.

Don't complain about a lack of debate if you are unwilling to engage in one.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 August 2006)

Well RS you say it is 'tough' that I have to obey the law.

The fact is, like it or not that it is 'tough' that I don't have to.

As you can't give me any sensible reason why I should I'll just carry on breaking it.


----------



## Onyxia (9 August 2006)

Or have the quality of the posts in here recently deteriorated?

I can't even be bothered to read them anymore.

It's a shame.
		
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree more!
Not so long ago( think about last christmas in particular) we could talk idears/views through and debate the rights and wrongs of each others views.Yes, we had the odd troll but on the whole posts were informative well thought out and really made you think about your own views on the subject( for me the mark of a good debate).

Fingers crossed it goes back to the way it was- soon.


----------



## Nigel (9 August 2006)

Hi Anima,

 I have to ask this question, did you have anybody to debate with or did you share the same view and agree with one another?

Cheers &amp; Chuckles

Nigel


----------



## Onyxia (9 August 2006)

No we had real debates.
Im pro by default so dont agree with many- not "hardcore" enough for "real pros" and too cruel for the antis so am often the odd one out!

HHO as a whole has gone downhill in recent months, which is why I am not on as much as I was last year.


----------



## Nigel (9 August 2006)

Hi Anima,

      So if you had real debates then you must have had real opposition, what happened to them?

Cheers &amp; Chuckles

Nigel


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

That's probably about where I stand, more middle way than anything else.

If we are going to have a law then it at least should be a sensible one that centers on animal welfare.


----------



## Clodagh (10 August 2006)

I agree with SM!

What happened to Endymion? Could have a proper debate there. Perhaps when the new season starts things will pick up, when theres more topical stuff to discuss rather than 'pro', 'anti'.

Know some good goss on Simon Upton, though!!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

RS is not too bad but when you get too close he just goes quiet.

I think he goes off and has a good think...

"mmm how am I going to get out of this one."

These "lord blairites" etc aren't that interested in debate, just crowing and are pretty ignorant of the facts and the law anyway.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

Mind you I'm sure Rs and Endy would hold Lord Blairite in utter disdain, he's hardly a good advertisement for their cause.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

Or perhaps he just likes to consider the issues and formulate a reply without always shooting from the hip, as it were.

So....

"Don't complain about a lack of debate if you are unwilling to engage in one. "

I well understand that you are greatly concerned about the issue of your dogs flushing deer, and the legality thereof.
I just dont happen to be greatly concerned about it myself, and I dont think, given the wider scheme of things, that it gives rise to an interesting debate.

"As you can't give me any sensible reason why I should I'll just carry on breaking it. "

I can give you a very good reason.... because, whether you like it or not, it's the law.  We dont get a choice as to whether to comply with laws or not, we dont get to cherry-pick the ones we like and ignore the ones we dont like.  You dont get to pick and choose.  The idea is that we all comply with them all.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

TBH, I used to think Blair and New Labour were a force for good.  And I think you have to admit that our economy is in far better shape than under the last Tory government.
But the health service is sacking staff and closing wards due to bad funding practices; we're engaged in no-win wars in Iraq and Afganistan; criminals are not being caught or punished; immigration is a complete mess; we're open to terrorist attack; and we're still trying to be the world's policeman and following the USA in whatever they do.
So, I have the feeling that the Labour government has just run out of steam (it happens to all governments in the end).  Time for a change.  If only the other candidates amounted to anyhting.

RS


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

My feeling exactly.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

"You dont get to pick and choose. The idea is that we all comply with them all. "

I think we are almost on the same lines here.

The fact is I SHOULDN'T be able to pick and chose.  But I CAN.  I don't agree with the law (and nor do you and nor doi they) so I break it and they do nothing to stop me.

Why?

Because the fact is even though neither you, the police nor LACS can admit it, you don't agree with the law.  That's why although the law says I cannot flush out with more than two dogs and must shoot the animal.  The simple fact is I DO flush out with four dogs and refuse to shoot the animal.

I can openly and repeatably break the Hunting Act.  It's called Civil Disobedience.  Where a law is clearly absurd people can and should break it.  The authorities have a right to prosecute them if they so wish.  If the law is clearly absurd then they won't.

This law may not be important but the law is.


----------



## Sooty (10 August 2006)

You've put your finger on it there RS - where is the opposition? I read the other day that Charles Kennedy is going to try and get his job back, and TBH I think he stands a good chance of getting it! The Tories have gone for an identikit Blair and woolly policies. They can't even use Iraq against Labour as they supported it. I don't know if it is because I am getting older, but I can never remember such a useless government, and yes - I did live through other Labour governments! I remember general strikes, spiralling inflation, then the Tory 3-day week fiasco, but we never had the additional problems with the NHS, law and order, education etc. Mind you, the NHS did far less in those days as medical science wasn't as advanced as it is now. My ex's wife has just been made redundant from her position as a senior midwife and will find out in three months if she is actually going. Apparently, this is the only way the hospital can get rid of its management layer. Shameful.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

I MIGHT have a go at obeying the law this winter, but only if I've got an outlet or room in the freezer for the venison.  Also the deer are often in groups and I'd only want to shoot one, so I'd still be breaking it if I flushed out more than one.

I definitely wouldn't stop taking my four dogs out on my land.  I have slaved for years to get what I own (yes I know that sounds corney) I love my dogs and think I should have the right to take them wherever I want on my own land, even though doing so flushes out the odd deer, fox, squirrel, hare etc.

If I do, I'll post a picture for you.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

When have I ever said that I disagreed with the law ?  Do stop making things up !


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

If possible, try and get a video of sufficient quality that it could be used in court.


----------



## severnmiles (10 August 2006)

I agree with SM!

What happened to Endymion? Could have a proper debate there. Perhaps when the new season starts things will pick up, when theres more topical stuff to discuss rather than 'pro', 'anti'.

Know some good goss on Simon Upton, though!!   

Click to expand...

Spill Clodagh, spill!! :-D


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

TBH, given the situation our country is in at the moment (and I dont think it's all bad by the way, there are still a lot of good bits), not even Churchill could put it right.
Not quickly, anyhow.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

Sorry, I'll rephrase that you refuse to answer as to whether or not you agree with it.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

I've already given them completely watertight proof that I am breaking the law.  What good would a video be?


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

Just to avoid multi-thread confusion, you're asking if I agree with the Hunting law ?


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

If you feel that would not provoke a prosecution, why not write to the Chief Constable of the county in which you live (or the CPS) to ask why they dont want to prosecute you.


----------



## Sooty (10 August 2006)

Well, Churchill was a good wartime leader but not much else. He was deeply unpopular after the disastrous Dardanelles campaign, and was booted off the front benches so went back to the army in a huff! You just like him because he created the Royal Navy air service... Oh, and he didn't write all his own speeches, despite being a journalist at one point and an author after the war.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

It's funny you should say that rs because I did.  Her legal adviser wrote back to say that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

Which is exactly the point I've been making.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

OK, feel free to insert the name of your choice in my earlier post!

[TBH, I didnt know he created the Navy Air service.... I guess while he was First Lord of the Admiralty ?].


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

I'm asking if you feel people should be prosecuted if they deliberately break the law by refusing to shoot the animals their dogs flush out.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

No,I should prefer initially to seek clarification as to whether accidental flushing was intended to be covered byt he wording of the act.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

"Which is exactly the point I've been making"

OK, so it's been decided by those in authority that it's not presently in the public interest to prosecute you.  That of course does not give you carte blanch to continue to break the law.  

If you want to try and provoke a prosecution, you may want to walk your dogs while naked and while shouting racist, sexist, or age-ist slogans; refusing to pay your council tax may also help.  I look forwards to reading about it in the papers.


----------



## Sooty (10 August 2006)

I think we have to look for someone who is single minded and ruthless, which brings to mind Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung or Margaret Thatcher! And yes, that is when he did it - he is credited with having the vision to see aircraft as a weapon of war. No doubting his intelligence!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

I'm not going to do anything of the sort RS the laws against all of the things that you mention are sensible laws which would get enforced.

I'll just carry on breaking the Hunting Act which as it applies to me, is not a sensible law and won't get enforced.

As usual this weekend I'll be flushing with four dogs.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

I don't flush out accidently I do it on purpose.

How could it be accidental if I know it's going to happen.

That would be like running someone over accidently when I knew I was going to do it before I got in the car.

The law just doesn't work like that.

Fore knowledge as far as the law is concerned IS intent.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

I'd be looking for someone kind, thoughtful, who loves this country, and had great wisdom.

OK, that could be difficult......


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

Well, just keep a detailed note of all these transgressions so that if/when you're nicked for soemthing you can ask for all these other offences to be taken into consideration.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

Hey this is a bit more like it, maybe not up to a titanic RS vs Severnmiles clash but still, not too bad.

All you need is a few people of reasonable IQ and earnest opinions.


----------



## flying_change (10 August 2006)

Using the word 'Titanic' makes me wonder which of us sank......


----------



## severnmiles (10 August 2006)

You of course....it would be a swear word to think that I had..... :-D

I truly am the unsinkable debater.....


----------



## Onyxia (10 August 2006)

That's probably about where I stand, more middle way than anything else.

If we are going to have a law then it at least should be a sensible one that centers on animal welfare.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.
TBH I ( and just me, not claiming to speak for anyone else) would have been much more happy if hunt staff could still go out and do their job but followers had been stopped.
Personally, I cant see anything wrong with hunting as it was but do understand why people object to the sporting aspect of it and wouldnt have a problem with that part being removed -provided that hunt staff were still allowed to do their job.
Only problem then would be how to fund it......


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

It's funny because the situation we have now is completely the opposite of the one you describe.

The followers won't get prosecuted under any circumstances, whether the Hunt Staff are doing anything illegal or not.  This is where RS's justification of the law falls down as he thinks it stops people getting pleasure out of the process.

Of course if you stopped followers you would also ban the hunt monitors as legally they are just as much followers as the followers, if you see what I mean.

In my opinion the only law that stands a real chance would be one against cruelty to wild animals, this would however have to apply equally to all activities which affect wild animals, not just Hunting.


----------



## severnmiles (10 August 2006)

OMG OMG OMG!!

No way!  Hunting is better the way it is than to have no followers...I really don't see that argument!

I'd cry and cry and cry if they had banned hunt followers and not hunting with hounds!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

I don't really think it's practical to make laws against enjoying something.  One has to realise that an objection to people getting enjoyment out of something is purely a moral one.

IMO people need to be a little more tolerant.  Have laws to stop people doing things, but not against what is in their heads, please.

In effect you are proscribing a feeling.

It's thought crime.


----------



## Onyxia (10 August 2006)

OMG OMG OMG!!

No way!  Hunting is better the way it is than to have no followers...I really don't see that argument!

I'd cry and cry and cry if they had banned hunt followers and not hunting with hounds!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it would upset me too.
But what REALLY matters is that the hunts can do their job, if that ment stopping followers then so be it.IMHO, trad fox huning is still the most efective method to controll the population.Surely its more important that hunts are able to get on with that then it is for us to enjoy a day out?


----------



## Onyxia (10 August 2006)

While I do agree completly with what you say if the enjoyment is purely from an animals suffering then it is wrong, no way around that.
I have hunted properly and drag, enjoyed one as much as the other.
Followers could get as much pleasure form drag if it was a well thought out route.

What I ment was that I would like the hunt staff to be able to go out and do their job ( minus followers) and drag with them.Trying to be real here, the ban is here and although fingers,toes and well everything is crossed that one day the stupid law will be over turned I think that way would be a good comprimise- for the time at least.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (10 August 2006)

"if the enjoyment is purely from an animals suffering then it is wrong, no way around that."

I quite agree but I don't think that that's got much to do with hunting.

I've got a barn full of cows, if I got enjoyment from an animalo suffering I'd be torturing them.

You can't legislate against people getting enjoyment from something.


----------

