# Minority Pastime trailer on youtube



## Scratchline (19 April 2010)

However distressing please all watch the trailer for a film 'minority pastime', that is being released before the election. It is avaliable for viewing on youtube. Lets forget the arguements about hunting with hounds and watch the reality.

Minority Pastime-rage against cruelty.


----------



## Scratchline (19 April 2010)

There are four films from minority pastime. Those who care about the welfare of animals and not just hounds please watch the rage against cruelty video. Thankyou.


----------



## Eagle_day (19 April 2010)

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the League of Cruel Sports.


----------



## Scratchline (19 April 2010)

Eagle_day said:



			That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the League of Cruel Sports.
		
Click to expand...

Eagle_day, if you watched the fourth video from minority pastime, not the foxy cute one, there is no way you can deny the reality of what happened pre-ban. Wasnt that fox grabbed by the rear end for starters?

I am not picking a fight. This video in full is going nationwide before the election. How on earth will anybody be able to defend what is shown in all honesty?


----------



## Scratchline (19 April 2010)

Eagle_day said:



			That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the League of Cruel Sports.
		
Click to expand...

I quote "I WILL SMASH YOUR CAR BECAUSE IM ENTITLED TO!!!"  

Is that what hunting is about Eagle_day in the 21st century?


----------



## Eagle_day (19 April 2010)

Surprised you're here, Scratchline: thought it was you dressed in a fox suit in Corby.


----------



## Scratchline (19 April 2010)

Eagle_day said:



			Surprised you're here, Scratchline: thought it was you dressed in a fox suit in Corby.
		
Click to expand...

Do you honestly, deep down believe that hunting as was which we are all very aware of what actually happens can ever return?


----------



## Xlthlx (19 April 2010)

Smashing up people's cars has always been illegal.  It's not affected by the hunting act


----------



## R2R (19 April 2010)

I have devoted my life to hunting and have never behaved like that. I very much doubt I am alone. 

If I sat on here and said &#8220;All foreigners are criminals&#8221; there would be more than outrage (I am NOT saying that, by the way, what so ever) 

I don&#8217;t get how saying a video which basically says &#8220;All hunt followers are bloodthirsty and barbaric &#8220; is any different? Surely it is biased?

I just do not see how it is a fair representation of fact.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 April 2010)

R2R said:



			I have devoted my life to hunting and have never behaved like that. I very much doubt I am alone. 

If I sat on here and said All foreigners are criminals there would be more than outrage (I am NOT saying that, by the way, what so ever) 

I dont get how saying a video which basically says All hunt followers are bloodthirsty and barbaric  is any different? Surely it is biased?

I just do not see how it is a fair representation of fact.
		
Click to expand...

R2R that is exactly it.  I have never smashed anybody's car in so why should an activity I engage in be banned just because someone else who also engages in it has threatened to?


----------



## Eagle_day (19 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			Do you honestly, deep down believe that hunting as was which we are all very aware of what actually happens can ever return?
		
Click to expand...

Scratchline

Yes

Regards

Eagle Day


----------



## Scratchline (19 April 2010)

Eagle_day said:



			Scratchline

Yes

Regards

Eagle Day
		
Click to expand...

Nice one Eagle_day, each to their own lol   No doubt you will like this take on the trailer i found on Facebook......"BRING BACK FOX HUNTING! Please watch this carefully. It contains scenes of hunt peronnel acting in self defence, a sab running over a hound because they were driving too fast and a deer being dispatched quickly with a gun. Oh and some hounds running onto train tracks which frankly is beyond the hunts control. This latest peice of filth has been put on the save me page and i'm no legal eagle but i'm sure false representation like this cannot be legal."

To be fair I dont like what you do but it must be nice on your own hunting planet. sadly, the public will judge what they see with their own unblinkered eyes lol lol


----------



## Xlthlx (19 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			Nice one Eagle_day, each to their own lol   No doubt you will like this take on the trailer i found on Facebook......"BRING BACK FOX HUNTING! Please watch this carefully. It contains scenes of hunt peronnel acting in self defence, a sab running over a hound because they were driving too fast and a deer being dispatched quickly with a gun. Oh and some hounds running onto train tracks which frankly is beyond the hunts control. This latest peice of filth has been put on the save me page and i'm no legal eagle but i'm sure false representation like this cannot be legal."

To be fair I dont like what you do but it must be nice on your own hunting planet. sadly, the public will judge what they see with their own unblinkered eyes lol lol
		
Click to expand...

I think the problem with films like that is that they compile various incidents such as people getting their cars smashed up and make it look as if that is what hunting is all about.

99.99% of the time it isn't

you could do exactly the same about lots of things

it's just completely biased propaganda spreading prejudice


----------



## Ahunter (20 April 2010)

Scratchline,

 if you watched the fourth video from minority pastime, not the foxy cute one, there is no way you can deny the reality of what happened pre-ban. Wasnt that fox grabbed by the rear end for starters

Can`t find it please post link.

Cheers

Ahunter


----------



## Scratchline (20 April 2010)

Ahunter said:



			Scratchline,

 if you watched the fourth video from minority pastime, not the foxy cute one, there is no way you can deny the reality of what happened pre-ban. Wasnt that fox grabbed by the rear end for starters

Can`t find it please post link.

Cheers

Ahunter
		
Click to expand...

I have tried to post links many times and failed, sorry. If you go to youtube and tap in minority pastime, click on the cute fox video ( puke), it brings up a film. Above the film on the left it says their are four videos from mp. Click on that and it is there. Hopefully someone can post a link as it really is only a video we can all watch and discuss.


----------



## Scratchline (20 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			I think the problem with films like that is that they compile various incidents such as people getting their cars smashed up and make it look as if that is what hunting is all about.

99.99% of the time it isn't

you could do exactly the same about lots of things

it's just completely biased propaganda spreading prejudice
		
Click to expand...

To be fair there is an election looming and to many the hunting ban is a very important issue. We only have to look at the actions of CA members doorstepping for pro hunting mp's to see that. Therefore I think the use of the word prejudice is completely wrong. None of Labours, or the Tory's or Lib Dems election broadcasts will be bigging up the opposition. Far from it.
To be fair someone could make a nice fluffly video about the pleasure of hunting but for public viewing, to get people on your side, you would have to go a long way to find anything not disturbing to the majority in this country.
The dispute between the two factions aside you are left with foxes and hounds being killed and severely injured and people just dont accept it is necessary anymore WHATEVER hunters claim.


----------



## Xlthlx (20 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			To be fair there is an election looming and to many the hunting ban is a very important issue. We only have to look at the actions of CA members doorstepping for pro hunting mp's to see that. Therefore I think the use of the word prejudice is completely wrong. None of Labours, or the Tory's or Lib Dems election broadcasts will be bigging up the opposition. Far from it.
To be fair someone could make a nice fluffly video about the pleasure of hunting but for public viewing, to get people on your side, you would have to go a long way to find anything not disturbing to the majority in this country.
The dispute between the two factions aside you are left with foxes and hounds being killed and severely injured and people just dont accept it is necessary anymore WHATEVER hunters claim.
		
Click to expand...


Hang on what has that got to do with the Hunting Ban.  Hounds are still killed and injured even when hunts are hunting legally and so are foxes.

There's no evidence that less foxes are being killed and injured now because of the hunting ban.

I presume various unpleasant people are still behaving badly too.


----------



## Eagle_day (20 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			To be fair there is an election looming and to many the hunting ban is a very important issue.
		
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

I have sene a great deal of coverage of this election but I haven't seen hunting mentioned once.  Next to crime, the economy, immigration and so on, it just isn't in the public mind.

LACS nutters have been wandering round Corby and Richmond dressed as a fox but have received no publicity whatsover.  Still, if they want to waste what little money they have left ....


----------



## ester (20 April 2010)

Interestingly the large conservative banners round work say 'vote fox'

I assume this is the name of the local candidate but did make me chuckle


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Hang on what has that got to do with the Hunting Ban.  Hounds are still killed and injured even when hunts are hunting legally and so are foxes.




			But the foxes are not being chased by a pack of hounds and then torn apart. That cruel sport is banned as was necessary. 




			There's no evidence that less foxes are being killed and injured now because of the hunting ban.




			So what? They are no longer being ripped apart by hounds as was the aim of the law and those that care about cruelty.




			I presume various unpleasant people are still behaving badly too.
		
Click to expand...

 Probably true but again not the point. The trailer shows the banned cruel sport that only for the fun of the hunt, hunters want to return to.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

Eagle_day said:



			No, it isn't.

I have sene a great deal of coverage of this election but I haven't seen hunting mentioned once.  Next to crime, the economy, immigration and so on, it just isn't in the public mind.

LACS nutters have been wandering round Corby and Richmond dressed as a fox but have received no publicity whatsover.  Still, if they want to waste what little money they have left ....
		
Click to expand...

OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto. They will not respond to questions, e-mails, television programmes or debates. On the politics show here in the South West we had a debate about the hunting ban. Labour turn up, lib dems, LACS, farmers etc etc etc All prospective Tory mp's across the South West and the CA refused to attend as again, it isnt an election issue?????????
If it isnt an election issue then why is it on the manifesto and why are the CA sending their members out to campaign for pro repeal mp's in marginal seats?!
Truth is Cameron is a puppet now for the CA yet both he and the CA know full well that the repeal vote is a massive vote loser for the Tory's and the only way to slip it by many people is to keep their mouths shut. Its called fear! lol lol lol


----------



## perfect11s (21 April 2010)

Scratchline said:





Xlthlx said:



			Hang on what has that got to do with the Hunting Ban.  Hounds are still killed and injured even when hunts are hunting legally and so are foxes.




			But the foxes are not being chased by a pack of hounds and then torn apart. That cruel sport is banned as was necessary. 




			There's no evidence that less foxes are being killed and injured now because of the hunting ban.




			So what? They are no longer being ripped apart by hounds as was the aim of the law and those that care about cruelty.

 Probably true but again not the point. The trailer shows the banned cruel sport that only for the fun of the hunt, hunters want to return to.
		
Click to expand...

 why dont you come on here when you have less time......??????
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## perfect11s (21 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto. They will not respond to questions, e-mails, television programmes or debates. On the politics show here in the South West we had a debate about the hunting ban. Labour turn up, lib dems, LACS, farmers etc etc etc All prospective Tory mp's across the South West and the CA refused to attend as again, it isnt an election issue?????????
If it isnt an election issue then why is it on the manifesto and why are the CA sending their members out to campaign for pro repeal mp's in marginal seats?!
Truth is Cameron is a puppet now for the CA yet both he and the CA know full well that the repeal vote is a massive vote loser for the Tory's and the only way to slip it by many people is to keep their mouths shut. Its called fear! lol lol lol
		
Click to expand...

 Blah Blah Blah......all this scratching is making me itch.....


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

why dont you come on here when you have less time......
		
Click to expand...

Why dont you for once tell the truth about hunting instead of pretending it is right or humane. Then pack up your hounds for the last time and get off our land!


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

perfect11s said:



			Blah Blah Blah......
		
Click to expand...

Are you denying what I have posted is true????


----------



## VioletStripe (21 April 2010)

May I just say, that I am completely for freedom of speech, but posting your beliefs about hunting being cruel in the hunting forum is a bit ridiculous. By all means, believe what you believe, but this is not what the hunting forum is for. There are many people here who believe hunting is one of the kinder ways, and find it a good sport riding around the country side chasing after the hounds with your friends. Posting this sort of thing is only going to start riots and all sorts of nasty things going on here, it's just being plain nasty to say to these people "This is what you're supporting. You're terrible, unnatural etc.." xx


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

VioletStripe said:



			May I just say, that I am completely for freedom of speech, but posting your beliefs about hunting being cruel in the hunting forum is a bit ridiculous. By all means, believe what you believe, but this is not what the hunting forum is for. There are many people here who believe hunting is one of the kinder ways, and find it a good sport riding around the country side chasing after the hounds with your friends. Posting this sort of thing is only going to start riots and all sorts of nasty things going on here, it's just being plain nasty to say to these people "This is what you're supporting. You're terrible, unnatural etc.." xx
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you may have missed a law change. The type of hunting discussed and longed for on this forum is banned and righlty so. Forums trumpeting the good name of illegal activities will obviously attract decent law abiding citizens who abhore blood sports and those who abuse animals.
If my backing British law causes offence to fox hunters then I am really sorry but tough x


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			I am sorry but you may have missed a law change. The type of hunting discussed and longed for on this forum is banned and righlty so. Forums trumpeting the good name of illegal activities will obviously attract decent law abiding citizens who abhore blood sports and those who abuse animals.
If my backing British law causes offence to fox hunters then I am really sorry but tough x
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you cause offense to anybody certainly not me.  I just think you are a bit of a dick


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

Last time I went hunting it was great out with the full pack, lots of exciting riding and a nice big joint of venison at the end of it.

No cars smashed everyone very pleasant and best of all  no greasy chavs out spoiling the fun.

The police were there taking someone'd motorbike details and just over the hedge everyone was getting on with it.


----------



## VioletStripe (21 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			I am sorry but you may have missed a law change. The type of hunting discussed and longed for on this forum is banned and righlty so. Forums trumpeting the good name of illegal activities will obviously attract decent law abiding citizens who abhore blood sports and those who abuse animals.
If my backing British law causes offence to fox hunters then I am really sorry but tough x
		
Click to expand...

I didn't miss the law change, it was a huge scandal at the stables where I was riding at the time. But, equally, when hunting the legal way, it does sometimes accidentally happen if the hounds come across a fox on the path! Just because people say they are going to a hunting meet doesn't mean they are intentionally going to do it the illegal way, and as for longing to do it, no law against dreaming!! xx


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			I don't think you cause offense to anybody certainly not me.  I just think you are a bit of a dick
		
Click to expand...

You should see me when I forget to take my medication!


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Last time I went hunting it was great out with the full pack, lots of exciting riding and a nice big joint of venison at the end of it.

No cars smashed everyone very pleasant and best of all  no greasy chavs out spoiling the fun.

The police were there taking someone'd motorbike details and just over the hedge everyone was getting on with it.
		
Click to expand...

2004 was a great year wasnt it.


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto. They will not respond to questions, e-mails, television programmes or debates. On the politics show here in the South West we had a debate about the hunting ban. Labour turn up, lib dems, LACS, farmers etc etc etc All prospective Tory mp's across the South West and the CA refused to attend as again, it isnt an election issue?????????
If it isnt an election issue then why is it on the manifesto and why are the CA sending their members out to campaign for pro repeal mp's in marginal seats?!
Truth is Cameron is a puppet now for the CA yet both he and the CA know full well that the repeal vote is a massive vote loser for the Tory's and the only way to slip it by many people is to keep their mouths shut. Its called fear! lol lol lol
		
Click to expand...

I wrote to Hilary Benn about whether it should be illegal or not to flush and chase deer

tbh he does not give a ****

funny how he can't bring himself to even use the word flush lol

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30446717&l=e4cda5949e&id=1559808200

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30437298&l=baad29cca8&id=1559808200


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

VioletStripe said:



			I didn't miss the law change, it was a huge scandal at the stables where I was riding at the time. But, equally, when hunting the legal way, it does sometimes accidentally happen if the hounds come across a fox on the path! Just because people say they are going to a hunting meet doesn't mean they are intentionally going to do it the illegal way, and as for longing to do it, no law against dreaming!! xx
		
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say VS. Problem is we have many silly people admitting to breaking the law and in the end the simple way a government will deal with the problem is ban the packs full stop. Even I dont wish for this and fully support drag hunting etc but it will come sadly.


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

Total rubbish SL

They absolutely do not want to revisit the law

The Government wanted different legislation anyhow and said it would not work the way it was done.

Their proposals were defeated.


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

And it is very rare to find anyone who admits to breaking the law.

The stag hunting I described was 100% legal.


----------



## Scratchline (21 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			I wrote to Hilary Benn about whether it should be illegal or not to flush and chase deer

tbh he does not give a ****

funny how he can't bring himself to even use the word flush lol

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30446717&l=e4cda5949e&id=1559808200

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30437298&l=baad29cca8&id=1559808200

Click to expand...

I think pretty much everybody agrees the deer shouldnt be killed, I certainly think the law on this point is a mess. But it was tory peers trying to screw up the bill that put you in this position wasnt it?
After May 6th we will tighten it all up and straighten it all out for you lol


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

Haven;t you read the letter SL they don;t give a **** about deer being flushed and chased and they don't plan  to amend the law.

You aren't suggesting he is lieing are you?


----------



## Xlthlx (21 April 2010)

I copied this to Benn too.  There really is no problem with flushing and chasing deer with over two dogs.  I am sure if he objected he would make it plain.  You don;t think he would just stand by and allow the law to be broken do you?


Stephen Otter
Chief Constable
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Middlemoor HQ
Exeter
EX2 7HQ

20 April 2010

Dear Mr Otter,
As you are aware I use my three dogs to flush deer out of cover.  You will know that the 
Government  have previously advised that flushing out of cover with dogs is only legal subject to 
strict conditions in the law.
I have recently contacted the RSPCA regarding my activities and they have advised me that they 
think they are legal.  They now advise that by flushing out of cover the law only means driving to 
guns and not just flushing out of cover.  
On that basis I am continuing to use my dogs to flush deer out both on my land and on the moor. 
The courts have ruled that flushing out while distinct from chasing can include an element of 
chasing so I am also chasing deer with dogs if I feel like it.
Personally I think this law is appallingly drafted and absurd and I do not think anybody in reality 
has a clue what it is.  The Government have advised that it is illegal and legal at different times.  I 
feel therefore I might as well pick whatever interpretation suits me.
The RSPCA have stated with respect to my actions that 'It may seem unlikely that any offence is 
being commited here' and 'Flushing is the act of driving an animal from cover for the purpose of
shooting'.
I also want my local hunt to carry out these activities and intend to write to them giving them 
permission on my land.
My prospective labour MP Mark Cann has backed the RSPCA's interpretation of the law.  I would 
expect him to encourage you to adopt it if elected.
I feel it is only fair to copy this letter to various interested people and organisations in order to give 
them an opportunity to object.  If none of them nor you do so I hope it will strengthen both mine 
and the hunts case if we were ever prosecuted for the deliberate use of out dogs to flush deer or 
other wild mammals.
I am in the meantime continuing to use my dogs as detailed both on my own l;and and in the wider 
countryside.
Yours sincerely,
Giles Bradshaw
cc RSPCA, LACS, Countryside Alliance, Mark Cann, POWA


----------



## Eagle_day (22 April 2010)

My my, hasn't Scratchy had a lot of time on his hands?  Perhaps it wasn't his turn to wear the fox suit.

"OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto."

Is that an admission and indeed frustration that the antis' PR has been useless, completely unreported and a total waste of money?  Why should we provide you with a platform for you to trot out your anti-hunting, and in contravention of the spirit if not the word of charity law, your anti-Conservative propaganda?  Far better to deny you the oxygen of publicity.

"If my backing British law causes offence ..."

Would that be Scottish law or the law as it applies in England and Wales? There's no such thing as 'British law'.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Haven;t you read the letter SL they don;t give a **** about deer being flushed and chased and they don't plan  to amend the law.

You aren't suggesting he is lieing are you?
		
Click to expand...

To be honest Giles hasnt it sunk in yet that they dont give a **** about you and what you are doing as it really is upsetting nobody whatsoever. FFS you have told everybody you possibly can. It takes up much of your life yet still nobody gives a stuff. Your desire to make a huge issue about you flushing deer etc has been a waste of time, your time and no they have no need to ammend the law which relates to what you are discussing buddy. Give up, you have failed in your attempt.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Exactly SL they don't actually give a toss if people break the law.

And you accept that the law is flawed and think it is fine for people to break it.

I don't give a toss if I break the law either.

If you don't like a law just break it.

Everything is cool

We are after all in agreement.  It's a badly drafted law and should not be obeyed.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			To be honest Giles hasnt it sunk in yet that they dont give a **** about you and what you are doing as it really is upsetting nobody whatsoever. FFS you have told everybody you possibly can. It takes up much of your life yet still nobody gives a stuff. Your desire to make a huge issue about you flushing deer etc has been a waste of time, your time and no they have no need to ammend the law which relates to what you are discussing buddy. Give up, you have failed in your attempt.
		
Click to expand...

haha and two posts ago you were saying the law needs to be tightened up  lol.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Funny thing is that when I went hunting they were doing just that flushing, chasing and killing deer 

It's hard to have it both ways.  If I can do it so can anybody and you acknowledge that I can and don't think the law should be changed.


----------



## isee (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			To be honest Giles hasnt it sunk in yet that they dont give a **** about you and what you are doing as it really is upsetting nobody whatsoever. FFS you have told everybody you possibly can. It takes up much of your life yet still nobody gives a stuff. Your desire to make a huge issue about you flushing deer etc has been a waste of time, your time and no they have no need to ammend the law which relates to what you are discussing buddy. Give up, you have failed in your attempt.
		
Click to expand...

If people can still flush animals with dogs legally surely the law does need to be changed.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

isee said:



			If people can still flush animals with dogs legally surely the law does need to be changed.
		
Click to expand...

Can't you read what SL is saying - this was put in by Tory pro hunt peers and does not have to be changed because no one gives a toss if animals are still being flushed and chased legally or illegally.

What's the point of changing a law if no one gives a toss if it is broken or not because no one actually thinks it should have to be obeyed?

"I think pretty much everybody agrees the deer shouldnt be killed, I certainly think the law on this point is a mess"

It seems to me my little campaign has gone pretty well if I have managed to persuade pretty much everyone that the law is a mess and that the deer I flush should not have to be shot for the flushing to be legal.

Whether people give a toss that the law is a mess is another matter of course.

Does it actually matter if laws don't make sense if people can just break them?  That is an interesting philosophical question.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Can't you read what SL is saying - this was put in by Tory pro hunt peers and does not have to be changed because no one gives a toss if animals are still being flushed and chased legally or illegally.

What's the point of changing a law if no one gives a toss if it is broken or not because no one actually thinks it should have to be obeyed?

"I think pretty much everybody agrees the deer shouldnt be killed, I certainly think the law on this point is a mess"

It seems to me my little campaign has gone pretty well if I have managed to persuade pretty much everyone that the law is a mess and that the deer I flush should not have to be shot for the flushing to be legal.

Whether people give a toss that the law is a mess is another matter of course.

Does it actually matter if laws don't make sense if people can just break them?  That is an interesting philosophical question.
		
Click to expand...

No, no, no. Each case can be taken on its own merits. Dont put words into my mouth. In YOUR case I would support you. I havent mentioned anything else. Do not misrepresent what I say please!


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Regarding the law Giles it will not be changed and certainly not given the lame excuses of fox hunters which none of you can deny. I will not discuss the rest of my post any further but will allow you all to digest it.

The Lame Claims File
The fox-lovers handbook of answers to lame claims  as to why its acceptable to torture foxes to death.
Lame Claim Answer 
1. Its a BAD law... Baa-aad! Unenforceable... confusing... we dont understand it. Read it more carefully! Improve it, tighten it up, monitor violations more rigorously, enforce it more diligently. If the law against child molestation was found to be unenforceable, what would we do? Repeal the law? I dont think so.  
2. It took up too much parliamentary time. No it didnt. This law was introduced by proper parliamentary process  in accordance with the will of the majority of the British public, who consider hunting with dogs barbaric and unacceptable, and see this law as a flagship move towards better treatment of ALL animals wild animals, farm animals, and laboratory animals. The fact that Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance boasts that the Tories could smash this law in a day is proof that these people care nothing for the will of the people. God help us all if they seize power. 
3. Foxes are vermin; if we didnt hunt them, wed be overrun with them. So... how come the Hunts construct artificial earths to encourage the breeding of foxes, and, when foxes become scarce in a particular area, the hunts re-introduce them? Hunt supporters have elsewhere actually claimed that if there were no foxhunting, foxes would have been extinct by now. Surely there must be more humane ways to save an endangered species?

By the way... DEFRA defines which animals are classed as vermin in the UK. The fox is not among them. Foxes are NOT vermin. This is in fact a very old argument  only now heard from hunting advocates who have not kept up. Its so obviously a lie, that it has been replaced in the mouths of most Countryside Alliance members with this next (pretty much opposite) argument. 
4. We dont persecute foxes - we love them... we conserve them... we preserve a balance - we even enoble them by hunting them - and we strengthen the breed by picking off the weakest. Well, make up your minds - just now, they were vermin - pests - to be controlled. Now suddenly they are precious - and I bet they enjoy being enobled by being pursued and dismembered alive by dogs. Yes, folks, if there were no foxes, the foxhunters would have no fun. So they make sure there are enough to hunt  and the numbers go down in a particular area, they import them. (Oh, and by the way, if being hunted is good for the species... perhaps wed better instigate the hunting of humans... itll improve the strength of our species too... goody!) If we really want to get technical, my ecology advisor adds, This whole savannah theory of maintaining balance by removing predators only applies when those species have coevolved together and are infact in a delicate balance. We did not co-evolve predating foxes in this manner, so this argument is ecologically unsound. 
5. Its traditional - traditions are good - they are our birth-right. Oh, really? So the traditions of wife beating, bear baiting, slave whipping, burning of supposed witches, birching of schoolchildren (and so many more atrocities)... were all traditions that ought to have been preserved... right?! Just because something has been done for years does not make it right. If traditions were always upheld, women would still not have a vote. Traditions my ass. 
6. Foxes are vicious and cruel - havent you seen what they do to a chicken coop if they get in? They kill all the birds for pleasure. Not true - its another bit of outdated propaganda. If a hungry animal suddenly finds food, it will eat it... just like we do... but the foxes kill extra chickens with the purpose of burying them for future use, when the pickings are slim. Left to themselves they will come back and bury those chickens... but they are not completely stupid; if there is a farmer with a gun waiting to shoot him, Mr. Fox is not going to come back and collect the food supplies. Killing for pleasure? Make no mistake... there is only one animal that does this... MAN. 
7. Foxes are dirty. Nope - theyre not... our rescued foxes spend at least as much time grooming themselves as the average domestic cat; in fact they are very cat-like in many ways... this is something I never realised until I spent time with these delightful animals. They dont cover up their poo, but neither do any of our domestic dogs. Its not the end of the world, and certainly not a good enough reason to persecute them.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

8. &#8220;It&#8217;s NATURAL for men to hunt foxes, just like Lions hunt antelope.&#8221; Well, the flaw in this argument is blindingly obvious. Lions kill for food... but humans do not eat foxes. There is only one reason to hunt down and murder a fox... for fun... for &#8216;sport&#8217;. It&#8217;s not in any way justifiable. It&#8217;s barbaric, and it&#8217;s cruel - it&#8217;s also clearly a crime, as defined by the 1909 Cruelty to Animals act. By the way, have we not noticed that it is NOT the hunters who manage to pull off this great &#8216;sporting achievement&#8217; - it&#8217;s the hounds? 
9. &#8220;Ah well, yes - it's natural for DOGS to kill foxes.&#8221; Rubbish. It is in no way natural. We&#8217;ve already published pictures of our local dogs playing with the rescued foxes... along with deer and various birds. The fox is a naturally, delightfully gentle creature &#8211; timid, and built for running. The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. The Hunts test the hound puppies on fox cubs. It&#8217;s the charming practice of &#8216;cubbing&#8217;, wherein, once the parent fox has been slaughtered, the tiny fox-cubs are poked out or dug out from their homes, and forced into the path of the young hounds - already &#8216;toughened up&#8217; and ready to mutilate. The young hounds eat the fox pups alive. If the young dogs are not vicious enough, the Huntsmen shoot them - another nice piece of &#8216;natural selection&#8217; designed to make the pack not only healthy but also as vicious as possible. Even leaving aside this abhorrent cruelty to foxes, in a decent society it ought to be illegal to raise a dog for the sole purpose of killing. (In fact, as noted in LC 11, currently it IS illegal to breed dogs for dog-fighting... we logically we need to bring things into line... so that what is law for the yobs is law for the toffs too.

It&#8217;s interesting that perhaps the foxhunting community of people have been in a sense brutalised, too &#8211; brought up in a way that has desensitised them to the cruelty around them. 
10. &#8220;By hunting we eliminate the weakest animals, so we strengthen the species. The foxes are either killed, or get away if they are strong. Just like in Africa.&#8221; Good try. But this is just another sly (yes, it&#8217;s the humans who are sly &#8211; not the dear old foxes) attempt to bend the truth. In fact, the appallingly cruel methods used in the Hunt ensure that the chances survival of a fox in no way depend on its natural strength. Foxes are routinely imported, kept in bags so they are weakened and disoriented when they are let out in front of a pack of brutalised hounds. And the truth is that the occasional fox who actually does manage to elude the dogs is usually &#8216;accounted for&#8217;, by digging out and being shot anyway. No-one should be allowed to treat animals this way. 
11. &#8220;It&#8217;s all about class! The middle and working classes are jealous of the toffs, and want to deprive them of their rights - among them, the right to treat any animal on their land any way they see fit.&#8221; Nonsense. It is nothing to do with class. Decent people are equally outraged if a young thug in Yorkshire goes out with his pit-bull terrier and encourages it to savage wild animals, or if a rich land-owner in Berkshire goes out with HIS brutalised dogs and commits an atrocity on a fox, or rabbit, or otter. None of us care a jot about class. We care about animals. Brutal behaviour is brutal behaviour. There is no excuse.  
12. &#8220;You people who live in towns don&#8217;t understand the ways of the countryside. Leave us alone and mind your own business!&#8221; This is a good one... so glib... so ALMOST convincing. The Countryside Alliance is very keen to tell the &#8216;townie&#8217; politicians how to run the whole of Britain - and has managed to make farming the most heavily subsidised industry in the land. Yet these same people deny the towns people the right to protect animals in the countryside... as if &#8216;country people&#8217; OWNED our wildlife. Imagine land-owners insisting that, if child-abuse happened on their land, nobody in town had the right to try to stop it. We&#8217;d all say... &#8216;these children might be on your land, but they still have rights - we reserve the right to monitor your behaviour and stop the cruelty where we find it.&#8217; Yet these Countryside Alliance stalwarts would have us accept that wild animals straying on to their land legitimately become subject to their every whim. It&#8217;s a vile conceit.  
13. &#8220;You are taking away our human right to socialise in our traditional way.&#8221; Not at all. We absolutely defend your right to meet up on a crisp country morning, dressed up in pinks, and scamper about on your horses. What we dispute is your right to trample everything in your path, endangering people&#8217;s property, children, pets and livestock. And we dispute your right to kill animals for your pleasure, in a hideously cruel manner.

Drag hunting, with the hounds following a scent other than fox, gives you all the socialising you need, and all the exercise; and it has the huge advantage that the path of the hunt can be pre-planned, so that your neighbours are not threatened by invasion. If you refuse to accept this as a decent alternative, it can only be that you need the thrill of killing, and that you actually crave the feeling of wanton disregard for anyone around you... that feeling of superiority, perhaps &#8211; &#8220;Lords of the Manor&#8221; and all that? It&#8217;s time to come into the 21st century. 
14. &#8220;If we are prevented from killing foxes using dogs, farmers have to control these pests by shooting them. Farmers are poor marksmen, so many foxes die a lingering death from gunshot wounds - which is inhumane.&#8221; Inhumane? Excuse me?!!! Given the choice of being pursued until your muscles are paralysed and then ripped apart by hounds; or shot with a bullet, with the chance of an instant death, which would you choose? I asked this question to the man who would be the new head of DEFRA (the Department of the Environment and Farming and Rural Affairs) if the Tories were elected in May. He at least had the decency to say he wasn&#8217;t entirely sure. But many of the Countryside Alliance propagandists continue to insist that being killed by hounds is a desirable option. Sorry, but... simply not believable. We always come back to the same conclusion... the only reason to be indulging in this filthy blood sport is that you enjoy causing unnecessary pain to animals.  
Own up, guys. You are cornered &#8211; and about to be run to Earth!

Thankyou to brian may for his kind permission to use this piece.


----------



## isee (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Can't you read what SL is saying - this was put in by Tory pro hunt peers and does not have to be changed because no one gives a toss if animals are still being flushed and chased legally or illegally.

What's the point of changing a law if no one gives a toss if it is broken or not because no one actually thinks it should have to be obeyed?

"I think pretty much everybody agrees the deer shouldnt be killed, I certainly think the law on this point is a mess"

It seems to me my little campaign has gone pretty well if I have managed to persuade pretty much everyone that the law is a mess and that the deer I flush should not have to be shot for the flushing to be legal.

Whether people give a toss that the law is a mess is another matter of course.

Does it actually matter if laws don't make sense if people can just break them?  That is an interesting philosophical question.
		
Click to expand...

TOTAL nonsense!  People care about such loopholes in the law.  The Labour Party will be returned to Government on May 6th and at that point they will bring forward changes to the law.

Now is not the time for them to discuss such changes publicly but I can assure you that Labour ministers are very well aware of the law's flaws and are privately committed to changing it.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			No, no, no. Each case can be taken on its own merits. Dont put words into my mouth. In YOUR case I would support you. I havent mentioned anything else. Do not misrepresent what I say please!
		
Click to expand...

Don't you think the same law should apply to everyone then?  The law makes specific actions illegal such as refusing to kill animals that you deliberately flush out.  Are you suggesting that I should be allowed not to kill animals but other people should have to kill them?


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

isee said:



			TOTAL nonsense!  People care about such loopholes in the law.  The Labour Party will be returned to Government on May 6th and at that point they will bring forward changes to the law.

Now is not the time for them to discuss such changes publicly but I can assure you that Labour ministers are very well aware of the law's flaws and are privately committed to changing it.
		
Click to expand...

I am merely telling to what Benn has told me as confirmed by SL.  They don't give a toss if people are flushing and chasing deer so it really does not matter if it is illegal or not so there is no point debating it or amending the law.

Benn wrote to me to say he doesn't care and won't change the law and there is no point discussing it.  Are you calling him a liar?


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			After May 6th we will tighten it all up and straighten it all out for you lol
		
Click to expand...

Oh now he is saying they will amend it!


----------



## isee (22 April 2010)

The law is going to be amended however the important thing currently is to get labour back in so this will be possible.  An election campaign is not the time to complicate matters by acknowledging flaws.  Doing this would strengthen the pro argument that it is a bad law.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Don't you think the same law should apply to everyone then?  The law makes specific actions illegal such as refusing to kill animals that you deliberately flush out.  Are you suggesting that I should be allowed not to kill animals but other people should have to kill them?
		
Click to expand...

Giles, I believe and always have that the law should be used with common sense. In your case it is yet because of your desire to go on and on about this purely to try and get the hunting act repealed you alienate absolutely everybody you come into contact with. I dont get you. You are doing in your mind the right thing. If you find you are getting away with it without consequence why dont you shut the **** up about it because you are making a fool of yourself tbh.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

I see (lol) so it is acknowledged that the law is flawed and far from 'not giving a toss' the real situation is that Labour are lying when they say it is not, don't want to admit the truth until after the election.

Surely the election is the time to allow the people a say on how this flawed law should be modified or repealed and our politicians should be frank open and honest about the situation?


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			Giles, I believe and always have that the law should be used with common sense. In your case it is yet because of your desire to go on and on about this purely to try and get the hunting act repealed you alienate absolutely everybody you come into contact with. I dont get you. You are doing in your mind the right thing. If you find you are getting away with it without consequence why dont you shut the **** up about it because you are making a fool of yourself tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Can I just get this totally right.  You admit the law is a mess and you think that people should  able to break it as long as 'they are doing in their mind the right thing' and that if there are no consequences to breaking the law then it is fine to do so?

And when people point out the flaws in the law - which you too acknowledge the sum total of your argument on the issue is to tell them to shut the **** up?


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Oh now he is saying they will amend it!
		
Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  However they ammend the law I dont for one second think they will change the flushing part because there is obviously no problem with it. Dont bother coming back with your case Giles because you really are not a problem to anybody and you know it. Thats what ****** you off so much! lol Thats why you cannot shut up about it.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  However they ammend the law I dont for one second think they will change the flushing part because there is obviously no problem with it. Dont bother coming back with your case Giles because you really are not a problem to anybody and you know it. Thats what ****** you off so much! lol Thats why you cannot shut up about it.
		
Click to expand...

There's no problem with it?  But you just said "I certainly think the law on this point is a mess."

Is it not a problem if it is a mess?

and what bit will they change?  I thought the whole argument was that they are going to tighten the exemptions?  The flushing exemption is the part around which most of the cases involving hunts have centred.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Can I just get this totally right.  You admit the law is a mess and you think that people should  able to break it as long as 'they are doing in their mind the right thing' and that if there are no consequences to breaking the law then it is fine to do so?

And when people point out the flaws in the law - which you too acknowledge the sum total of your argument on the issue is to tell them to shut the **** up?
		
Click to expand...

No I do not think the law is a mess. I think it works well and 137 convictions so far proves so. Can it be improved, absolutey just as many many laws are. I do not believe anybody should be allowed to break it as in their mind it is the right thing to do. If you choose to break a law then the police/cps/ and courts will deal with you if it is in the public interest to do so. Every crime everywhere is down to a matter of interpritation of the law and the level of crime by the person responsible for law enforcement. In your case they leave you be. I am happy for you.


----------



## isee (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			Giles, I believe and always have that the law should be used with common sense. In your case it is yet because of your desire to go on and on about this purely to try and get the hunting act repealed you alienate absolutely everybody you come into contact with. I dont get you. You are doing in your mind the right thing. If you find you are getting away with it without consequence why dont you shut the **** up about it because you are making a fool of yourself tbh.
		
Click to expand...

This is totally wrong.  It is the exemptions including the flushing exemptions that need to be amended.  Pretty much everyone agrees with that.  One suggestion is to make all flushing illegal.  This would effectively put a block on the practice of trail hunting which is a major problem.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			There's no problem with it?  But you just said "I certainly think the law on this point is a mess."

Is it not a problem if it is a mess?

and what bit will they change?  I thought the whole argument was that they are going to tighten the exemptions?  The flushing exemption is the part around which most of the cases involving hunts have centred.
		
Click to expand...

They have not told you or I yet so we will have to wait and see.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			No I do not think the law is a mess.
		
Click to expand...

"I certainly think the law on this point is a mess."

Do you think these two statements are consistent?


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			we will have to wait and see.
		
Click to expand...

"I dont for one second think they will change the flushing part"

you keep contradicting yourself.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			I see (lol) so it is acknowledged that the law is flawed and far from 'not giving a toss' the real situation is that Labour are lying when they say it is not, don't want to admit the truth until after the election.

Surely the election is the time to allow the people a say on how this flawed law should be modified or repealed and our politicians should be frank open and honest about the situation?
		
Click to expand...

Are the Torys or the CA being frank and honest about their plans? No, they will not disuss or debate what is in the Tory manifesto as it isnt an election issue?! How on earth you can post the above with a straight face is beyond me.
Everybody is trying to get them to be honest but they will not. Funny that.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

isee said:



			This is totally wrong.  It is the exemptions including the flushing exemptions that need to be amended.  Pretty much everyone agrees with that.  One suggestion is to make all flushing illegal.  This would effectively put a block on the practice of trail hunting which is a major problem.
		
Click to expand...

what the **** sort of frigging **** is this?


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			Are the Torys or the CA being frank and honest about their plans? No, they will not disuss or debate what is in the Tory manifesto as it isnt an election issue?! How on earth you can post the above with a straight face is beyond me.
Everybody is trying to get them to be honest but they will not. Funny that.
		
Click to expand...

The CA wants the law repealed.  The Tories want a free vote and if it is for repeal to follow it with a government bill in Government time.  They have put that in their manifesto.  That seems pretty straightforward to me.  In what way is that not honest?

David Cameron has also made this clear several times.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			"I dont for one second think they will change the flushing part"

you keep contradicting yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Dont be daft. Saying actually for sure I dont know what they will do is very different to saying what I think they will do you silly billy.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			The CA wants the law repealed.  The Tories want a free vote and if it is for repeal to follow it with a government bill in Government time.  They have put that in their manifesto.  That seems pretty straightforward to me.  In what way is that not honest?

David Cameron has also made this clear several times.
		
Click to expand...

Cameron can say what he likes. Campaigning mp's will not discuss it.


----------



## Scratchline (22 April 2010)

Got to fly but it has been fun as always Giles lol


----------



## Xlthlx (22 April 2010)

Scratchline said:



			Dont be daft. Saying actually for sure I dont know what they will do is very different to saying what I think they will do you silly billy.
		
Click to expand...

But SL they say they have no plans to amend the law but you say after May 6th they will amend it although you insist that they won't amend the part of the law which you say is a mess because that is not a problem.

Arte you saying you don;t believe Mr Benn's statement?


----------



## isee (22 April 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			But SL they say they have no plans to amend the law but you say after May 6th they will amend it although you insist that they won't amend the part of the law which you say is a mess because that is not a problem.

Arte you saying you don;t believe Mr Benn's statement?
		
Click to expand...

Now is not the time to admit flaws and propose corrections!  That would weaken the Government's position.  Once re elected they will be fixed.


----------



## oakash (22 April 2010)

Wonder if I've been looking at the right videos on Minority Pastime? All I saw was the hunt supporters, with few exceptions, putting up with intolerable provocation by the hunt monitor snitches. The monitors seem the same sort of people which totalitarian states have always used to man their political prisons and torture chambers - people haters with a twisted psyche. Who do they think they are? Additionally, except for the carefully worded 'commentary' of the monitor, there was no indication that anything was being done which was not perfectly legal.


----------



## Eagle_day (22 April 2010)

Eagle_day said:



			My my, hasn't Scratchy had a lot of time on his hands?  Perhaps it wasn't his turn to wear the fox suit.

"OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto."

Is that an admission and indeed frustration that the antis' PR has been useless, completely unreported and a total waste of money?  Why should we provide you with a platform for you to trot out your anti-hunting, and in contravention of the spirit if not the word of charity law, your anti-Conservative propaganda?  Far better to deny you the oxygen of publicity.

"If my backing British law causes offence ..."

Would that be Scottish law or the law as it applies in England and Wales? There's no such thing as 'British law'.
		
Click to expand...

***Bump***


----------



## kryten (25 April 2010)

Well Skiddaw_Lad

Intimidation is exactly what some sabs are all about. Looking at those videos I would simply say that the sabs are doing a good job at monitoring people who want to tear our wildlife to shreds with hounds! If a little intimidation is required to stop that from happening, so what? That is NOTHING compared to the violence used by hunts people!!!! And deaths in the past too!!


----------



## Eagle_day (25 April 2010)

isee said:



			Now is not the time to admit flaws and propose corrections!  That would weaken the Government's position.  Once re elected they will be fixed.
		
Click to expand...

No, even in the unlikely event of a Labour victory, they will NOT be fixed.  Labour's manifesto says:

Labours green programme 
A Labour Government will:
9 Improve animal welfare
 Maintain the ban on fox hunting.


'Maintain' not 'strengthen'.

BTW Have you seen the comical footage of LACS' Fox Tour?  The Corby visit is hilarious (link from the LACS website); almost as good as the Elvis-Brown footage - also in Corby, the new comedy capital of the UK.


----------



## Angelbones (28 April 2010)

I really can't see the point of preaching to the un-convertible people on this forum. So let's see, who has watched the video clips and has changed their minds and is now anti fox hunting? Anyone? Hands up now..... You at back? Oh, you were just scratching your nose. Anyone?


----------



## oakash (28 April 2010)

I am quite sure you are right about no-one being 'converted'. After all, LACS has always taken on the gullible until they realise the truth and become pro-hunting- as demonstrated by their previous Directors or head men, at least two or three who are now pro-hunting. James Barrington was a recent one I think?   As regards the Labour party, it is nothing to do with perceived 'welfare' of foxes - merely chasing left wing votes.


----------

