# Overwhelming support for the ban



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

17 February 2008
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_kingdom/media_center/press_releases/02_17_2008_4467.php

(London) - New polling figures released on the third anniversary of the ban on hunting with dogs reveal that the vast majority of people do not want hunting wild animals - foxes, deer and hare - with dogs to be made legal again, and think hunters should obey the law.
The Ipsos MORI polls, released today by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, show that more than seven out of ten people in Britain (71 %) believe that hunters should not be allowed to break the law.

Furthermore, 73% do not want fox hunting to be made legal again. Eight in ten, 81%, were opposed to bringing back deer hunting, and 82 % were opposed to changing the law to allow hare hunting or coursing.

Sir Robert Worcester, Founder of MORI, said These latest polls show clearly that the British public still feels strongly about this issue.  Public perception remains for many that hunting wild mammals with a pack of dogs is cruel. Before the ban was introduced, public support for a ban in our surveys typically ranged between 2:1 to 3:1 in favour  so this latest figure suggests that this pattern is continuing.

A MORI poll conducted in January 2002, before the ban was introduced, also revealed that 72% of the public think fox hunting should be illegal  showing that support today is at the same level as 6 years ago.

Robbie Marsland, UK Director of IFAW, said: This news will come as a bitter blow for the hunt lobby, which is desperate to promote their cruel sport. This shows that the overwhelming majority of the British public has no tolerance for hunters who believe they are above the law.

John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, said: "This shows support for a ban on hunting is not just strong, it is rock solid. The British public strongly supports the ban, they want it to stay, and no amount of distraction has changed that. It's high time that pro-hunting campaigners gave up the chase and realised the public strongly supports the ban."

However, one prominent hunt supported, who declined to be named, was furious: "Why should I have to shoot deer I've flushed from my copse using my dogs? I don't chase the deer, just shoo them. I mean... yes, I DO chase them and make them stand at bay, because it's fun and I like to see the fear in their eyes when my dogs snap at them. This poll is absolute b*ll*cks because everyone knows that what I do is completely harmless, even when I do it only wearing green wellies. I hate this govenment so much, they're no better than the Nazis and Pol Pot put together!!! THEY'RE the weirdos, not me!"


----------



## spaniel (22 April 2009)

Given who commisioned this survey it would be very interesting to see the wording used whilst questioning the public before taking this at face value.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

The polls which count are the ones on election day and if the Tories get voted in having promised to allow a free vote on repeal then clearly that is what they should do.

If the majority of MPs vote for repeal then that is what will happen.

If support for a ban is 'overwhelming' then obviously the Tories do not stand a chance.

I suspect it is not high on many people's agendas but we will see.

Personally I support repeal or reform but I won't be voting Tory because of it.


----------



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/graphics/huntingtopline.pdf


----------



## peakpark (22 April 2009)

A poll requested by IFAW is hardly going to come out in favour of hunting!


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

weird how they asked the question about dog fighting, what was that all about?


----------



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

"Even people who consider themselves Conservative voters do not want to see the ban on hunting repealed, a controversial poll to be released tomorrow will say.

The Western Daily Press can reveal a new MORI poll shows a majority of Tory supporters want to retain the Hunting Act, despite the party itself pledging a repeal as soon as it gains office."


----------



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

Remember the CA's 59% support hunting campaign?

"A poster advertisement for pro-hunting pressure group, the Countryside Alliance, which claimed that "59 per cent say keep hunting", has been withdrawn due to its misleading content.

The withdrawal of the advert, which appeared on advertisement bicycles, was ordered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), following a complaint by The League Against Cruel Sports.

The League claimed the opinion poll quoted in the ad was based on flawed methodology and unreliable results.

The advertisers argued that it was publicising its contention that the majority of the public did not support a ban on hunting. It said the 59 per cent figure had been obtained from a recent poll conducted by NOP (National Opinion Poll).

However, the ASA discovered that the Countryside Alliance arrived at the figure by adding together the responses from two different questions in a NOP survey, which "portrayed hunting as a civil liberties issue."

"The survey's questions were phrased in broad terms and that respondents who had agreed with the third statement could have interpreted it in many ways and agreed with it for many different reasons," said the ASA."


----------



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

The CA has been rigging polls for years - see the story below.
Why can't they just say: we know the majority of people don't like hunting, but a large minority do and it's our choice. Resorting to these childish games (and it's happened ever since, with every seemingly every single tv and radio poll provoking manic repeat-dial voting from hunters) just seems pathetic. There's a sort of dishonesty about it which, I'm afraid, seems pretty engrained in the hunting community.
__________________________________
"Hunt supporters cheated in TV poll

MARIE WOOLF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Sunday, 18 July 1999

ITV HAS dropped a national opinion poll on fox-hunting after hunt supporters tried to rig the vote.

The television company suddenly stopped this month's national poll on hunting after it discovered an organised multiple-voting campaign by those opposed to a ban.

Executives at ITV Teletext, which carries regular polls on current affairs issues, decided to scrap the poll after it found hundreds of "no" votes being dialled from the same numbers.

"We keep an eye on our polls and we discovered that there was multiple voting from the same numbers for the noes," said an ITV spokeswoman. "We took the poll off air and investigated it. We could see from the numbers that there was multiple voting going on."

The Countryside Alliance, which is spearheading the campaign to save fox-hunting, had contacted supporters about the ITV poll. It told them how to vote "no" in the poll and instructed them "to start phoning now".

The Independent on Sunday has obtained an e-mail from the alliance that includes the phone number for a "no" vote.

The e-mail, sent throughout the pro-hunting network, from Henny Goddard, who works at the Countryside Alliance's headquarters, reads: "Please phone the following number ... Teletext vote following Prime Minister's latest statement on hunting last night. Please distribute far and wide. Please start phoning now for ITV Teletext poll on page 326: Should hunting be banned."

Last week the Countryside Alliance distanced itself from a similar operation involving a chain letter urging hunt supporters to use polls to "turn the tables" on "a well-organised campaign against us", "through sheer weight of numbers".

Last night the alliance admitted that it had contacted supporters, telling them to vote in the poll.

"We do let people know when these phone polls go on," said a spokesman. "Henny did send out this e-mail about the Teletext poll. She forwarded it to friends, and they sent it to other friends, who sent it on to other friends. But these are real people that are calling in."

Earlier this month Tony Blair announced his intention to bring in legislation before the next general election to ban fox-hunting.

He surprised MPs by announcing on BBC's Question Time that "we will get the vote to ban as soon as we possibly can". But it is now likely that local regions will be able to hold referendums about whether to retain hunting or not.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said that the pro-hunting lobby's attempt to rig opinion polls, which consistently show a majority of British people in favour of a ban, was a desperate measure.

A recent MORI poll found that 68 per cent of people who lived in the the country were opposed to hunting and that 53 per cent of Conservative voters were opposed to hunting with dogs.

"This is an absolutely desperate attempt to rig democracy," said an IFAW spokesman. "We know that the strength of public feeling is firmly against hunting. They are trying to manipulate the polling and they have been caught out."


----------



## rafferty (22 April 2009)

I think 71% against hunting is probably right. 
We all know the CA have huge pots of money to throw at this issue, we also know they have hijacked the the whole rural issues cause to champion foxhunting.
Problem is the ban has caused more problems than it has solved. I'd love for foxes to have the same rights as any other dog in this country does but it won't happen.
The wildlife in this country will only benefit from everyone who cares working together to find a solution. I don't see how polls really help. They'd be better off asking how a better solution could be achieved.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

It really depends how you phrase the question.

If you said "do youthink it is better to 

a) givie millions of wild mammals poison that makes them take several weeks to die in horendous agony

or 

b) kill them quickly

they'd probably vote b)


----------



## Bunce (22 April 2009)

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.


----------



## Bowen4Horses (22 April 2009)

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.
		
Click to expand...

i'm not sure it says that anywhere... 

it might also have something to do with how the questions were asked. merely asking questions about dog-fighting in the same questionnaire as fox-hunting makes the general public draw a link between them. which is nonsense.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

I think that is a pretty weak argument.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.
		
Click to expand...

i'm not sure it says that anywhere... 

it might also have something to do with how the questions were asked. merely asking questions about dog-fighting in the same questionnaire as fox-hunting makes the general public draw a link between them. which is nonsense.  

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Wouldn't a better option be just to present the three legislative options

a) do nothing
b) licensed hunts
c) total ban 

and see what people vote for.


----------



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

Having listened to hunters quite carefully for a while, I'm disappointed to find how much lying and dissimulation they use. Issuing warnings on hunting sites not to discuss openly how they flout the ban, faking poll results, rigging telephone polls, blatant lying about the Hunting Declaration. Even on this site you have proven, documented liars like Giles Bradshaw. I prefer the up-front hunters like Tom Faggus who openly admit they lie. There is, bizarrely, at least a kind of honesty in that.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

Where is it proven and documented that I lie?

Could you post proof please?

Oh no sorry your argument is that you assumed I meant something therefore I said it.

you are such a ####


----------



## Bunce (22 April 2009)

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.
		
Click to expand...

i'm not sure it says that anywhere... 

it might also have something to do with how the questions were asked. merely asking questions about dog-fighting in the same questionnaire as fox-hunting makes the general public draw a link between them. which is nonsense.  

Click to expand...

It's simple maths.

look at the results.  Most people voted for fox hunting and dog fighting.  They are equivalent.  The poll proves that


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

The poll no more proves that than I said on Labourspace that my dogs never chase animals.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

ZigZagZig thinks that this statement is saying that I don't chase deer with my dogs lol:

"I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the dogs then chase them out of the wood."

This is what he calls documented proof that I did not claim on Labourspace that I chase deer with my dogs.


----------



## zigzagzig (22 April 2009)

You've declared - pompously - that you're going to ignore my posts. Why are you now responding to them? Another broken promise. You're dishonest, a liar.

Why do pros lie so often? It's just silly and rather pathetic.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

How don the words


"I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the dogs then chase them out of the wood."

mean that I do not chase deer?


----------



## Bunce (22 April 2009)

How don the words


"I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the dogs then chase them out of the wood."

mean that I do not chase deer?
		
Click to expand...

Who is suggesting that they do?


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

Zigzag claims that I lied on the Labourspace site by denying I chase deer on it.

I've asked him to point out where I have denied that but he can't so now he is in a bit of a huff because he's been found out.

In fact it clearly states that the dogs do chase deer.


----------



## Bunce (22 April 2009)

It does say that you do chase deer.  However your campaign is irrelevant.

If your actions are harmless then the police will nit enforce the law so it really does not matter if what you do is illegal or not.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 April 2009)

Thay I think is the nub of the issue.

If everyone agrees the law is bollox then  does it really matter?

If people don't agree with it and break it and the police don't agree with it so don't enforce it then is that a problem in anyway.

I would say that absurd laws reduce our respect for the law as a whole and devalue the currency of crime as a concept.

However maybe I am just a fuddy duddy and should go with the flow.  These people are complete dick heads after all.  F uck their laws


----------



## Bunce (22 April 2009)

looking at it the whole thing about calling you a liar seems a little childish.

I wish people could debate the issues rather than resorting to such slurs in lieu of making a substantive point.


----------



## zigzagzig (23 April 2009)

This is what you said on labourspace:

"I feel a great affinity towards these deer especially the red deer. My control methods are extremely gentle. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DEER EVEN TO BE CHASED [my caps]. It is extremely important to me that they do not suffer nor are harmed. What I do causes the animals no more disturbance than any one else does by walking dogs through woodland."
http://reformthehuntingact.labourspace.com/view_campaign?CampaignId=93

As I've said several times now, this creates the strong impression that you don't chase the deer you flush out from your copse. If you do indeed chase the deer, you're being dishonest.

But elsewhere on that site you say that whether you chase the deer or not is irrelevant. Here you say it highly relevant. Where are you wrong, here or there?

You refer endlessly to DEFRA who you claim support your interpretation of the law. But on this site you say what DEFRA say is irrelevant. Why then make these pointless references? 

You claim the CA's expensive doomed legal foray to the House of Lords established as law your interpretation of the Hunting Act. This simply isn't true. It's another deliberate lie. However, the Wright case did establish that what you did wasn't "hunting" and therefore not illegal. In a desperate attempt to shoehorn your shooing into the Act you place increasing emphasis on the alleged chasing of deer, even though you say this is irrelevant...

You claim I support the practice of driving herds of deer to teams of guns. I've asked you provide a link to where I say this. Again, you can't, because you were lying.

In fact the only thing you've freely admitted to is your ultra bizarre claim that the Chernobyl disaster was an ecological "godsend". And the person who says this is having his potty legal pantomime sponsored by the CA in the European Courts! It's hilarious.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

What you have quoted DOES NOT SAY I DON'T CHASE THE DEER (my caps).

You have not quoted from this bit also on LabourSpace WHICH DOES SAY I CHASE THE DEER (my caps)

"This is willow coppice regenerating. Coppicing is an extremely ecological practice. Not only is it carbon neutral but it also has a very beneficial effect on bio diversity. The presence of deer if controlled can be useful because they slow down the regeneration providing a window for the life cycle of rare woodland butterflies and also keep down under growth and generate path ways through the coppice. However if the deer are allowed to be in the coppice too much they can eat all the green shoots of the trees effectively killing the coppice. I use a non lethal means to regulate the presence of the deer in the wood.  I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the DOGS THEN CHASE THEM OUT OF THE WOOD (My caps). The Hunting Act only allows me to continue this if I then kill the deer."


Are you totally thick?


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

To ,me the fact that i say that the dogs chase the deer creates the strong impression that you are talking total bollox.

What do you reckon?


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

It's irrelevant whether the deer are chased as to whether they are flushed out or not.  Flushing out and stalking are defined as exempt hunting by the Hunting Act.

Flushed out deer do not need to be chased in order for them to be dispersed as they will run away anyway and can be repeatedly flushed out top move them on.

However it is simpler to chase them too as you can move them further in one flush which is what I do as stated on Labour Space.

A piss take about chernobyl has nothing to do with it.

I am assuming you support the Hunting Act which requires as interpreted by the court a team of guns to be used to kill flushed out deer.  If you don't fair enough but then again that means you basically agree with the campaign because that is what it is against.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

could you post your reasoning process behind your interpretation of the polls.

I am always fascinated by idiotic reasoning 

cheers


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

Also from the LabourSpace site:

"These are the dogs which flush out and chase the deer in my woodland."


----------



## Bunce (23 April 2009)

It's irrelevant whether the deer are chased as to whether they are flushed out or not.  Flushing out and stalking are defined as exempt hunting by the Hunting Act.
		
Click to expand...

The law makes it clear that animals can only be deliberately flushed out if it is in order to flush them to guns.

This is to prevent the hunts from flushing them out, chasing them and killing them with dogs in the old manner.


----------



## Springback (23 April 2009)

Whilst I take all of these points from both sides I really don't think POWA are in any position to stick up for animals, given that their monitoring tactics seem to involve scaring the crap out of them.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

True but at least they are honest enough to recognise that the Hunting Act is flawed:

POWA statement 2006:

"In response to Giles Bradshaw's latest missive (Your Say, October 31), I have at last cracked, and decided to reply... Though a hunt monitor for many years, and thus entirely on the other side of the fence from Mr Bradshaw, in this instance he has a point. There is an anomaly in the Hunting Act which requires that if you flush deer out with dogs, "as soon as possible... the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person". It is apparently illegal just to let them run off, as Mr Bradshaw says he does most days of his life now, and, of course, he should not be prosecuted for this harmless activity. Peter Bunce Haddenham Buckinghamshire"

POWA website:

"The truth is the Hunting Act is flawed"


----------



## Eagle_day (23 April 2009)

"Whilst I take all of these points from both sides I really don't think POWA are in any position to stick up for animals, given that their monitoring tactics seem to involve scaring the crap out of them."

... and killing people.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

Yeah the killing people seems a little too much by any standards


----------



## Silverspring (23 April 2009)

I think 71% against hunting is probably right.
		
Click to expand...

i would agree, roughly 7 in 10 people I meet are ill educated and unable to think for themselves.  :smirk:


----------



## zigzagzig (23 April 2009)

If you do indeed chase deer why not say so in you main post? I repeat, to say that "there is no need for the deer even to be chased" is dishonest, given that you do indeed chase them. I will go further. You say: "It is extremely important to me that they do not suffer nor are harmed. What I do causes the animals no more disturbance than any one else does by walking dogs through woodland." This is a lie. You've boasted on this forum about using your dogs to keep a deer at bay. This isn't what a casual dog-walker does. This is subjecting the deer to deliberate suffering.

I've said repeatedly that I don't support the Hunting Act. Please provide the link to where I say I support herds of deer being driven towards a team of guns. If you can't, why not simply say you either lied or made a mistake?

Your comment about Chernobyl wasn't a "piss take" when you made it, or indeed when you subsequently tried to back up your loony stance on here. You provided links to so-called "learned" journals which you claimed supported your position. When I provided you with material that showed that the ecological boom in Chernobyl-land wasn't as rosy as you claimed, even you had to effect a humiliating back-track and insist that you were joking all along. I've been hoping that you would do the same with your laughable "shooing is hunting" obsession, but hope springs eternal.

You may be a nice guy in real life, but you seem hopelessly bizarre in the way you conduct your deliberately dishonest, pointless campaign. The fact that the Countryside Alliance is sponsoring you, I'm afraid, suggests that it's a silly Micky Mouse outfit, and that's a shame for everyone who appreciates the countryside.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

nonsense anyone who walks their dogs through woodland off the lead will know that they will occasionally chase deer this is causing them no more disturbance than I do.

I'm glad you don't support the requirement in the law for hunts to shoot the deer they flush out.  That's the whole point of the campaign, to remove that stipulation and I am glad you support it.

I don't really understand why you are arguing with me when you agree with my criticism of the Act.

POWA agree to.  They bare on record as saying the law is an anomaly and should not be enforced.

How do you know what spirit my7 comment about chenobyl was made in?

It was to wind up dick heads on forums and it succeeded.  I found the whole thing very funny.,

I don't think you get my sense of humour.

I find you very funny too.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

Zig zag you say my campaign is stupid but you support the contention that hunts should not have to shoot the deer they flush out.  That's what the campaign is.

The law is anomalous and should not be enforced.

That is my position, POWA's position and yours.

My campaigning lead POWA to accept this.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

ps it's obviously got your back up ma bit which is good


----------



## rafferty (23 April 2009)

Hebegebe,

Although I agree with some of what you say, I'm confused by your motives. Firstly obviously you're a strong advocate of 'the hunt' however you are an intelligent man and so must realise that 'the hunt' kill animals. I don't really understand your position on this, your very rude to the antis on this forum and in general (your post about scumbag monitors springs to mind) yet you seem to share more in common with them than with the hunt supporters.
I'm not being patronising but I would really like to know your way of thinking. it seems you care about the wildlife on your farm from some of what you have said but also condem those who also share your views.
Out of intrest would you if legal, allow stag hunting on your land.


----------



## rafferty (23 April 2009)

Just to point out the conservatives are not promising to bring back hunting but just to allow a free vote.
This is what labour did and the vote for the ban was  400 to 150 ( I think) in other words a lot of MPs would have to lose their seats and pro hunting MPs take their place.

its not going to happen.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

hardly any tory MPs voted for a ban.  if there is a substantial tory majority and there is a free vote it will get repealed


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

Ugly Dog,

I am middle way.

I think the first question is do we need control/management.  The second question is what is the best way of accomplishing it with respect to the end result and the welfare impact.

I agree with the Burns report that it cannot be said that shooting is more humane than hunting.

I think in many circumstances hunting is better.  This is because it mimics predation because it tends to select weaker animals and it does not wound.  Hunts are in an ideal position to monitor wildlife and have an interest in a thriving population of their quarry at a level that does not unduly impact landowners.

I think we should have a law that regulates all means of killing wildlife according to the same criteria.  I also think we should favour wildlife management over pest control,

At the end of the day I will not stop what I do because I know it works and is humane.

I will never obey the hunting act and that is unconditional.

I will not be persuaded by idiotic arguments.

My use of dogs is the best and most humane method and it is more humane than shooting them.

I am not going to do something I regard as more cruel because of a stupid law passed by bigoted idiots.


----------



## rafferty (23 April 2009)

Thank you, I'm in agreement with you there.


----------



## rafferty (23 April 2009)

I bet some one has done the math, would be interesting to know. I think the conservatives will win but maybe not by the majority we think.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 April 2009)

Well good for you.

Quite a lot of antis are starting to realise how misconstrued the law is.

It's a slow process but we are getting there.


----------



## rafferty (23 April 2009)

I'm not actually an anti I just think its a 2 way arguement.
I don't like animals suffering on the other hand I do believe that the only way forward is to work with those who actually can benefit wildlife. Hedgerows and woodland need to be provided and maintained, without a habitat there is no sustainable population. I would like both sides to come to a compromise. We all know hunting still goes on and I think foxes probably are worse off now in many ways.
I think foxes get a bad press and the idea of anything being torn apart by dogs by sickens me but I'd rather that and a healthy population than widespread use of poision and snares.
I know some farmers don't allow hunts  but wont tollerate any foxes on their land and shoot the lot. surely thats worse.
I'm sounding like a pro tonight which I'm not keep up the good work Bunce and Zig zag.


----------



## Hebegebe (24 April 2009)

Well we can agree to differ as to whether hounds kill a fox by tearing it apart but I am sure we will both agree that a rifle bullet does.  It's not the neat entry and exit holes you see in holywood.

The crucial difference is that the fox caught by hounds will die quickly.  The fox whose leg is half torn off by a rifle bullet can take a much longer time to die.

I think where we all agree is that the Hunting Act is a bad piece of legislation.  POWA have gone on record to say that the requirement for hunts to gun down the animals they flush out is an anomaly and should not be enforced.  Zigzag opposes the law too although he seems to have some strange hag up about Chernobyl.

It's ironic that people preach about everyone having to obey the law when in fact I think we all would acknowledge it should nit be obeyed because we don't agree with it.

In fact no one does.  They all know it is flawed.

Overwhelming support for the Hunting Act?  Maybe, but certainly not from Zigzag, you, POWA or me.


----------



## Hebegebe (24 April 2009)

Just to summarise

Zizzag - opposes Act - opposes requirement for hunts to shoot animals they flush out

POWA - "The truth is the hunting act is flawed"

Ugly_dog - thinks their shyould be a compromise

me opposes ban

scratchline - accepts the Act should be changed

last rebel - ditto

CPS - Act is "Wholly unworkable"

where is this overwhelming support?


----------



## Eagle_day (24 April 2009)

"where is this overwhelming support?"

Just LACS, I think. Extract from their website:

 With the support of 75 per cent of the public and 59 per cent of Tory voters, the Hunting Act is in a stronger position than ever. The vast majority of the public do not want to turn the clocks back to a time when cruelty and killing for pleasure under the guise of hunting with dogs was legal, making the case for repeal extremely weak.

Despite loud protestations from the hunting lobby, there is no doubt the Act is working with 68 prosecutions to date and a number pending testifying to this. Over 150 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 481 calling for better enforcement and the only people calling for repeal are the small minority who enjoy killing for sport.


----------



## Hebegebe (24 April 2009)

...and all outstanding prosecutions against hunts dropped by the CPS and LACS on account of the CPS declaring the law 'virtually unenforceable'

  

you couldn't make it up!!!!!


----------



## rafferty (24 April 2009)

It's there.
I dont know a single person who supports hunting.
This includes my father in law and his merry gang who go shooting. Several friends with horses and a family of farmers.
I agree they may not know the whole story or understand all the facts but they are entitled to an opinion.
And please dont say that only country people should be allowed to have an opinion on this as it sounds a bit elitist.

and their Tories one and all.


----------



## Hebegebe (24 April 2009)

No mention of those who signed edm 122 critisizing the law


----------



## Hebegebe (25 April 2009)

When the Tony Wright appeal judgment came out LACS put out a statement welcoming it and saying that it now meant prosecutions could continue.

In the following weeks all those prosecutions including one by LACS were dropped.

Do you think this organisation has any credibility whatsoever?


----------



## Scratchline (25 April 2009)

" The vast majority of the public do not want to turn the clocks back to a time when cruelty and killing for pleasure under the guise of hunting with dogs was legal, making the case for repeal extremely weak.
		
Click to expand...

Hi all )

Eagle_Day, I dont think it wise for anyone to doubt the reality of the words written above. I believe the hunting act should and will be ammended and rightly so. Many cases have proven this is necessary.
I have no doubt whatsoever though that we have seen the end of hunting animals with dogs. Chasing and killing. The Countryside Alliance think they have a large voice and believe they have plenty of support. IMHO we aint seen nothing yet! Many thousands of people in this country were forced to accept hunting as was because at the time it was legal. We had no choice. Regardless of how utterly opposed to it we were, we put up and shut up. Sadly and to our shame we turned our backs on it and let the pomp and ceremonial slaughter of foxes continue. We saw, we knew yet we did nothing and let others make a stand against it in our name, often in the face of unnaceptable abuse both verbal and physical from those legal hunters.

Well now its illegal. Now it is banned. What is desired by some is a return to that type of hunting. The massive difference is this time it would be about all of a sudden allowing people to chase and kill wild animals with dogs. If any government tried to allow it once more everybody who in the past didnt complain will. Everybody who turned their backs will not. No hunt will ever be legally allowed to hunt as was. Because if the government will not stop them and tries to allow the return of a bloodsport that was banned on cruelty grounds then I kid you not, people like me will. I will not be quiet this time and I will not let foxes be chased and killed in that way ever again!
Think the antis made life difficult for hunts before? This time the general public will stop it in its tracks before it even gets going. And pushing the masses about with your horses aint going to work, I kid you not! You will be suprised just how few of us are bunny huggers who will let you get away with it old boy ))


----------



## Scratchline (25 April 2009)

if there is a substantial tory majority and there is a free vote it will get repealed




			There is no way on this earth bud that any government will be allowed by the people of this country to introduce an illegal blood sport. The protests would be on a scale previously never seen in this country I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Hebegebe (25 April 2009)

lol!


----------



## Scratchline (25 April 2009)

lol!
		
Click to expand...

     Any government trying to introduce a blood sport wouldnt be laughing lol lol


----------



## Bunce (25 April 2009)

Scratchline you are absolutely right.

Hunting with dogs is the biggest political issue in Britain today.

Any Government that lets there be a free vote on the issue would be overthrown by the British people in a mass popular uprising.

If hunting were ever now legalised we would see mass protests with tens of thousands of people taking direct action at each hunt to prevent it occurring.

Apart from amongst the tiny pro torture hunting lobby there is 100% support.


----------



## Hebegebe (25 April 2009)

why are the tories so far ahead in the polls then if it's such a big issue for people?


----------



## Eagle_day (25 April 2009)

Scratchline you are absolutely right.

Hunting with dogs is the biggest political issue in Britain today.
		
Click to expand...

Well that's the greatest piece of fantasy since Darling stood up in the Commons and presented one of the most duplicitous and dishonest budgets ever seen.

Hunting is not the biggest political issue now, nor has it ever been.  The vast majority of people don't care what methods of pest control are used in the countryside.  We now have a government locked in a death-spiral, presiding over the worst peacetime deficit ever, which will take over 20 years to repay.  People are worried about their futures and their jobs, and providing for their families.  To them the death of a fox is of as little account as sparrow's tears.

You are a deluded fantasist if you think even a total of 10,000 would turn up countrywide to protest.  The anti network is nearly moribund with a rump of a handful of groups left.  LACS is skint and dependent on the IFAW to fund its abandoned prosecution.  We put half a million people of the streets of London, an effort you can't even dream to match.

Hunting continues within the exemptions of the Hunting Act as supported by the legal decision in the Wright High Court hearing.  It hasn't gone away and our support goes from strength to strength.

Repeal in 18 months.


----------



## wurzel (25 April 2009)

Having listened to hunters quite carefully for a while, I'm disappointed to find how much lying and dissimulation they use. Issuing warnings on hunting sites not to discuss openly how they flout the ban, faking poll results, rigging telephone polls, blatant lying about the Hunting Declaration. Even on this site you have proven, documented liars like Giles Bradshaw. I prefer the up-front hunters like Tom Faggus who openly admit they lie. There is, bizarrely, at least a kind of honesty in that.
		
Click to expand...

I don't really lie myself. I just hunt. The master tells a little one at the meet. But then I could be wrong. Maybe he does exempt hunting. It shard to say sometimes!!


----------



## wurzel (25 April 2009)

" The vast majority of the public do not want to turn the clocks back to a time when cruelty and killing for pleasure under the guise of hunting with dogs was legal, making the case for repeal extremely weak.
		
Click to expand...

Hi all )


I have no doubt whatsoever though that we have seen the end of hunting animals with dogs.
		
Click to expand...


I think a trip to Exmoor might surprise you old boy !!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (25 April 2009)

following from time to time these posts, especially since the season finished i've not read such a load of deluded bulls--t from these so called "animal lovers!" still,never mind that, they'll never have it any other way- all i do know is, having hunted on Exmoor myself(before this crap they call a ban)hundreds turn out to follow, both riding and in vehicles, and according to friends living and still following down there ,nowt has changed!! by the way, hunting is with hounds, not dogs-get something right for lord's sake!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (25 April 2009)

the above post was addressed to the anti brigade by the way who seem to be all so well ill informed in all things to do with hunting, rose coloured glasses come to mind!!


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

Do you like this letter?

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/letters/flawed-Hunting-Act-ditched/article-936353-detail/article.html


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

That letter is utterly ridiculous.

It is nonsense to say:

"The difference is that hunts, no matter how carefully they control their dogs, will be criminalised for these inevitable, occasional slips."

All we are demanding is that hunts no longer take dogs into any areas where there might be wild mammals.  This is the simple step that needs to be taken to prevent any possibility of a chase.

The modification to the law will make it work much better because we will only have to collect evidence of an animal being chased by a dog to prosecute.  It will no longer be necessary for the hunt to be hunting the animal.


----------



## guido16 (26 April 2009)

Hunting with dogs is the biggest political issue in Britain today.
		
Click to expand...

Bunce, are you living in some parallel universe?

When did you last see any mention of fox hunting in the UK headlines?

Recession, budget, poverty, school closures, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, job losses, banks,crime, homeowners, MP`s expenses, G20, unemployment, free prescriptions, terrorism, immigrants, NHS, unpair pay, fuel prices.

I dont see Fox Hunting appearing anywhere there, oh and before you say anything, I took most of these "news" stories from Labours website..


----------



## Eagle_day (26 April 2009)

"All we are demanding is ...."

Demand all you like. No-one is listening.


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

Hunting with dogs is the biggest political issue in Britain today.
		
Click to expand...

Bunce, are you living in some parallel universe?

When did you last see any mention of fox hunting in the UK headlines?

Recession, budget, poverty, school closures, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, job losses, banks,crime, homeowners, MP`s expenses, G20, unemployment, free prescriptions, terrorism, immigrants, NHS, unpair pay, fuel prices.

I dont see Fox Hunting appearing anywhere there, oh and before you say anything, I took most of these "news" stories from Labours website..
		
Click to expand...

That is because it has been banned.

beleive you me the vast majority of the British public hate the people associated with fox hunting.

If any Government seeks to bring it back they will be immediately ousted by a massive groundswell of popular anger.


----------



## oakash (26 April 2009)

I 've had a good laugh at the 'anti' posts on here! What is particularly amusing is their vain attempts to try to ensure that the unknowledgable public think that hunting is 'cruel'! For exampl, any reference to hunting will contain some reference to it being 'cruel' !!!


----------



## Bowen4Horses (26 April 2009)

Hunting with dogs is the biggest political issue in Britain today.
		
Click to expand...

ha ha ha. whatever side of the argument someone is on, they have to laugh at this comment. what a ridiculous load of cr*p. please don't be so narrow minded. 

whilst i'm sure it's a serious issue for you, please have the brains to acknowledge there are far more pressing political issues in the world!


----------



## guido16 (26 April 2009)

[quotebeleive you me the vast majority of the British public hate the people associated with fox hunting.

If any Government seeks to bring it back they will be immediately ousted by a massive groundswell of popular anger. [/quote]

Yup, you have confirmed what I thought. You really are in cloud cuckoo land.

So the VAST majority HATE people associated with fox hunting?

Really? Can I see your evidence to back that up please?

And by that, I would like to see evidence of the HATE.


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

The IFAW poll clearly found that most people view fox hunting as equivalent to dog fighting and badger baiting.  These are the simple irrefutable facts.


----------



## guido16 (26 April 2009)

The IFAW poll clearly found that most people view fox hunting as equivalent to dog fighting and badger baiting.  These are the simple irrefutable facts.
		
Click to expand...

So supporters of IFAW did a poll and came to this decision. 

Did the poll ask them if they "HATED people connected to hunting"?

Was that a specific question?

You havent really answered my question.

I asked you where the evidence was that "The majority of the public hated people connected to hunting"

I didnt ask you if most people view fox hunting as equivalent to dog fighting and badger baiting.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

The IFAW poll did not ask people if they thought fox hunting was equated to dog fighting.  You cannot draw that conclusion.


----------



## Bowen4Horses (26 April 2009)

the IFAW poll will obviously show a more 'anti' approach, it is not representative of the general public, so you cannot generalise from their results.
I am not pro-hunting, but i am astounded by the level of ignorance and aggression shown by the 'antis' on this forum -to the extent i would be embarrassed to call myself an 'anti'. and instead i find myself agreeing with the 'pros' even if i disagree with their cause!


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

I agree with you.

Take zigzag constantly calling me a liar even though he has no basis for the claim.

When they cannot make a sensible argument they just start making things up.


----------



## guido16 (26 April 2009)

i`m just astounded by Bunce thinking that the general public care more about fox hunting than the recession and the problems it causes individuals.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

It is important to the antis cause to maintain the myth that the ban has overwhelming support


----------



## guido16 (26 April 2009)

The funny thing is that even before they have found out which "side" people are on, they still come across with the above mentioned attitude.

Its actually a sure fire way of not gaining any more support from people!


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

Eagle_day, I really hope you're nothing like your online persona. You're the most miserable, grumpy, humourless person I've ever encountered on the net. Apart from that you're great.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

Quite the opposite ZZ I think we are all having a jolly good chortle at your, sls and b's expense  :grin: :grin:


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

So far, Giles, we've nailed two of your lies, namely that you don't chase deer and your lie that I approve of flushing deer to teams of guns. Let's nail some more...

1. You say on the labourspace site: "I feel a great affinity towards these deer especially the red deer. My control methods are extremely gentle." Yet you also boast elsewhere about using your dogs to keep deer at bay. How is this "extremely gentle"? It's deliberately frightening the deer. Moreover, what right have you got to lecture us about an animal welfare law when you're needlessly cruel to animals?

2. You claim that the ruling in the cases up to the House of Lords in which you were an appellant support your contention that flushing out deer away from your copse contravenes the Hunting Act. I think you're lying. Why not prove me wrong by citing the relevant passages from the judgments? The cases are online so it'll be easy to provide a link.

3. Re your bizarre claim that the Chernobyl disaster was an ecological "godsend". At first you tried to justify your potty stance with references to so-called academic studies, then youchanged it to "I was just trying to start a debate". Now you've changed it again to a "piss take". This shows that even weirdo fanatics like yourself, when confronted with the loony reality of what they're saying, can have a sudden self-illuminating insight into their dementia. Sadly, in your case, you subsequently try to lie your way out of your embarrassment by insisting it was just a silly wind-up.  Pathetico.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

Fuc ing hell you are such a boring t##t  :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

It doesn't say I don't chase deer anywhere.  We've established that'#s just you bullshitting.

1) What I do is not cruel to animals and you support int being legal.

2) I don't think the Govt's detailed arguments are on the net actually xxx


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

We'll take that as three more "nails" then.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

yiu can shove it up your arisole mate


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

We'll take that as three more "nails" then.
		
Click to expand...

What I don;pt understand about your position is that you accept that he is being cruel by deliberately flushing out, chasing and making deer stand at bay and yet you go to such extraordinary lengths to argue that it is not illegal.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

Why is making a deer stand at bay cruel.  It selects a suitable place - in both cases a stream and turns to face the dogs to fight them.

In both instances it had no chance of being hurt because it is far bigger than the dogs.

Have you seen the antlers on a stag???

My dogs do much the same to cattle and sheep without any cruelty.

What do you think is likely to happen to it?  Have it's throat ripped out?

Standing at Bay is completely natural for a rd deer stag.


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

well it is cruel and it is also illegal to flush bout, chase and make deer stand at bay for your own sick and deranged pleasure.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

If what i do is cruel then why do POWA describe it as 'harmless' and declare the law against it an 'anomally' and say that I should not be prosecuted for breaking it?


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

So you think flushing out deer from your copse, then subsequently using your dogs to chase them (when they're already away from said copse and not harming it) and then hold them at bay is "extremely gentle"? Another lie!

The House of Lords judgment IS online. It is the judgment only which has any weight in terms of legal authority. Give me a link to where the Lord Lords interpret the Hunting Act as you do. You of course won't be able to, because once again you were lying. 

You even lied when you said you would henceforth ignore my posts if I called you a liar. LIAR! Put me on ignore, Braddy, then at least you won't have to take any more punishment from my posts!


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

So you think flushing out deer from your copse, then subsequently using your dogs to chase them (when they're already away from said copse and not harming it) and then hold them at bay is "extremely gentle"? Another lie!
		
Click to expand...

Yes I do.  Certainly in comparision to the alternatives of shooting the deer.  That's kind of the whole point.

In  the court case the Government argued that the law  made what i do illegal unless I shoot the deer.  The case was about whether that contravened my human rights.  The judgment was that it didn't


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

Nope not abiding by a promise is not a lie.

You seem to have very little command over the English language.


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

Fine, if you're right, it'll be easy enough to point me to where the Lord Lord says this. If you don't I'm afraid you'll have been caught out making porky pies again. 

I'll await the link with interest.


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

The POWA position is that simply flushing out deer with collies is harmless.  The law should ideally be changed so it only targets hunts and then prevents them going out at all into the countryside.

That ios the only way that hunts can be got rid of.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

Why should I put you on UI I am enjoying laughing at the fact you are such a dick head.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

I am pointing out the consequence of the judgment.

Point out where it says on labourspace I say I do not chase deer.

Or are you just a lying dick brain?

 :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

It doesn't say you don't chase deer.  We have established that fact already.

Why do you keep going back to that?


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

The central contention of the LabourSpace campaign that it should be legal for people to flush out deer without shooting them is one that all sensible people reject.


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

but ZZ LR  SL and POWA all accept that this part of the law is completely wrong.


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

For the umpteenth time, here is what you say:

"I feel a great affinity towards these deer especially the red deer. My control methods are extremely gentle. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DEER EVEN TO BE CHASED [my caps]. It is extremely important to me that they do not suffer nor are harmed. What I do causes the animals no more disturbance than any one else does by walking dogs through woodland."

The vast majority of people reading this would conclude that you don't chase the deer.


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

but he doesn;t actually say he doesn't chase the deer as you claim.  her makes it clear that he does chase the deer.  So let's put that one to rest shall we?

The simple truth is that flushing out and chasing deer as described by Bradshaw on the LabourSpace campaign is against the law.

Do you accept that?


----------



## zigzagzig (26 April 2009)

I think we should all be grateful when Tim posts if he spares us his boasts about his perfect Danish or his oh-so-interesting military anecdotes... What a snooze-inducer!


----------



## Hebegebe (26 April 2009)

but he doesn;t actually say he doesn't chase the deer as you claim.  her makes it clear that he does chase the deer.  So let's put that one to rest shall we?

The simple truth is that flushing out and chasing deer as described by Bradshaw on the LabourSpace campaign is against the law.

Do you accept that?
		
Click to expand...

I think I am right5 in saying that he thinks it is still legal to flush out and chase deer with more than two dogs.


----------



## Bunce (26 April 2009)

Well I am afraind that ZigZagZig does not have a clue what he is talking about.


----------



## Eagle_day (27 April 2009)

"If any Government seeks to bring it back they will be immediately ousted by a massive groundswell of popular anger."

But it's no secret that the new Conservative government will allow a free vote to repeal the Hunting Act, and yet the Tories are leading Labour by 17 or 18% in the polls.  There is no 'massive groundswell of popular anger'.

Earth to Bunce

Earth to Bunce


----------



## zigzagzig (27 April 2009)

Four words to strike fear into the hearts of everyone: David Cameron, Prime Minister...


----------



## Scratchline (27 April 2009)

why are the tories so far ahead in the polls then if it's such a big issue for people?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, had toothache )  The Tory lead has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Any sugestion that it has is ludicrous bud )


----------



## Hebegebe (27 April 2009)

That wasn't the question though.

You made out that huinting was this huge issue that was hugely important to most people.  If it is why are the tories so popular.

If they wanted to legalise child rape then they wouldn't be ahead in the polls.


----------



## zigzagzig (27 April 2009)

Exactly, pros see the tories' lead in the polls and wet themselves with excitement because they equate it with repealing the ban. What they're forgetting is that once Dave is PM and the ban has been discarded, we'll have... Dave as PM, plus a third-rate team of politicos who look tired even before they've entered office.


----------



## rafferty (27 April 2009)

eagle day 

they are allowing a free vote the same as labour did and the outcome will be the same the ban will remain in place for better or worse.


----------



## rafferty (27 April 2009)

You're stating the obvious but it needed to be said


----------



## rafferty (27 April 2009)

Hebegebe

off topic, do pedigree really ?


----------



## Eagle_day (27 April 2009)

Believe what you like, but in this case you're wrong.

The new intake are very grateful for the support they have and will receive.  Many of those who voted for the ban will be out of office; Tony Banks is dead and buried; and so will be the Hunting Act.


----------



## rafferty (27 April 2009)

Well I'm sure we all agree the sooner we have an election the better.
I'm not saying this from a pro or anti point of view, I just think a Tory victory won't necessarily spell an end to the ban.

Time will tell


----------



## zigzagzig (28 April 2009)

"Tony Banks is dead and buried; and so will be the Hunting Act."

This says an awful lot about you as a person.


----------



## Eagle_day (28 April 2009)

Sentimental balderdash!

Rather, it says an awful lot about Banks' ability to draft effective anti-hunting legislation.  He hijacked the lincensing-based Hunting Bill to give us what we have today.  Thank you, Tony!


----------



## Hebegebe (28 April 2009)

This guy sums up the act's stupidity rather well I think 


"My experience with deer round here is that if you go within 400 yards of them they run away at full speed so why all the fuss about "flushing"?"

http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/s...unting-lawarticle-231088-details/article.html


----------



## zigzagzig (28 April 2009)

I was brought up to believe that you shouldn't speak ill of the dead. To crow about a guy because he's in his grave seems unnecessary and bad form.


----------



## Hebegebe (28 April 2009)

no one spoke ill of him or crowed about him


----------



## wurzel (28 April 2009)

I was brought up to believe that you shouldn't speak ill of the dead. To crow about a guy because he's in his grave seems unnecessary and bad form.
		
Click to expand...

I was brought up to say what you think about people.

When he was alive he was just a little fascist. And like many other little fascists in history I am not too sorry he is dead and gone.

Sorry to be blunt but its the truth.


----------



## zigzagzig (29 April 2009)

mmmmm...


----------



## rafferty (29 April 2009)

Tom 
So was I, you really are pathetic little man.
Its very hard not to agree with the antis when you just seem to typify hunting with your arrogance and igonorance.
I'm trying to think you're just the odd idiot you get in every walk of life and not a reflection on those who hunt, but its difficult. Well I took your bate and will probably get banned but I don't care.

Tom your a T**t

Sorry to be blunt but its the truth


----------



## zigzagzig (30 April 2009)

Just be grateful Tom didn't drone on about his perfect Danish and his exciting SAS missions all over the world...


----------



## rafferty (30 April 2009)

Perfect danish is that one with jam in the middle.


----------



## wurzel (30 April 2009)

Tom 
So was I, you really are pathetic little man.
Its very hard not to agree with the antis when you just seem to typify hunting with your arrogance and igonorance.
I'm trying to think you're just the odd idiot you get in every walk of life and not a reflection on those who hunt, but its difficult. Well I took your bate and will probably get banned but I don't care.

Tom your a T**t

Sorry to be blunt but its the truth
		
Click to expand...

Took my bate?

What are you talking about?

If you are going to call me names at least sort out your spelling.


----------



## wurzel (30 April 2009)

Just be grateful Tom didn't drone on about his perfect Danish and his exciting SAS missions all over the world...
		
Click to expand...

Pull up a sandbag old girl.

Are you trying to bate me?

I would have loved to have been in the SAS  but I went to Credenhill to early and found the RAF girls doing GST !!

Never mind !!

Don't be jealous about my language skills. I am sure you are excellent at Greek or something !!


----------



## rafferty (1 May 2009)

whoops bait, have to admit I was so angry when I wrote that I was paying more attetion to my language than my spelling :grin:


----------



## wurzel (1 May 2009)

whoops bait, have to admit I was so angry when I wrote that I was paying more attetion to my language than my spelling :grin:
		
Click to expand...

Don't get angry. 

I forgive you.

You can be as rude as you like to me.

The thing is, Tony Banks hated Me, You and probably most of all himself. I expect he wanted to die young.

This from an Early Day Motion....

"That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again."


I quite like living AND most of the human race.

I think he got his wish.

If he didn't want to die I may be more sympathetic.


----------



## zigzagzig (1 May 2009)

I AM jealous of your language skills! It must be very useful to speak Danish.


----------



## Scratchline (2 May 2009)

I AM jealous of your language skills! It must be very useful to speak Danish.
		
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO!!! )))


----------



## wurzel (2 May 2009)

I AM jealous of your language skills! It must be very useful to speak Danish.
		
Click to expand...

As you may be able to work out, it is useful when speaking to Danish people who do not speak English.

And quite useful in Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Sweden.

I have found it extremely useful in bars in all these places.

But of course it is nothing to do with Stag hunting is it?


----------



## zigzagzig (4 May 2009)

"As you may be able to work out, it is useful when speaking to Danish people who do not speak English.

And quite useful in Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Sweden."

I must remember the next time I'm in Sweden to take a Danish phrase book.


----------



## wurzel (5 May 2009)

"As you may be able to work out, it is useful when speaking to Danish people who do not speak English.

And quite useful in Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Sweden."

I must remember the next time I'm in Sweden to take a Danish phrase book.
		
Click to expand...

You could do that.

It is basically the same language. A few glaring exceptions. Potatis and Kartofler for example.

Not sure you will master it though.

Maybe if you shout loudly in English. That would be the Sunday Mirror way I expect?

It is just you don't seem that quick on the update and put most of your energy into making things up.

If I were you, before you try and spend 20 years trying to get the basics of another language, I would try and read a book about hunting.

Then you could join in on this forum properly.

Jeg Glaeder Mig !

P.S. Have you got a copy of that letter yet? Or some photos of Exmoor farmers secretly breeding herds of foxes?

What a muppet !!


----------



## zigzagzig (6 May 2009)

Why are you getting so angry? I've conceded that a knowledge of Danish is a highly valuable skill. It's also true that one very rarely encounters a Dane who speaks English. Look at Peter Schmeichel!


----------



## Hebegebe (6 May 2009)

Why are you getting so angry? I've conceded that a knowledge of Danish is a highly valuable skill. It's also true that one very rarely encounters a Dane who speaks English. Look at Peter Schmeichel!
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be unable to differentiate between someone being angry and laughing at what a dick head you are.


----------



## zigzagzig (6 May 2009)

So much for putting me on "ignore". WHY am I so tantalizing? It's a curse.


----------



## Hebegebe (6 May 2009)

So much for putting me on "ignore". WHY am I so tantalizing? It's a curse.
		
Click to expand...

twats are funny, it's the way of the world


----------



## wurzel (7 May 2009)

Why are you getting so angry? I've conceded that a knowledge of Danish is a highly valuable skill. It's also true that one very rarely encounters a Dane who speaks English. Look at Peter Schmeichel!
		
Click to expand...

Angry?

I am laughing at your pathetic attempts to take the piss.

So you are not impressed with my language skills !

The suicidal feeling is fading fast.

Have you got that letter yet you little liar?


----------



## zigzagzig (8 May 2009)

I hope you exercised better self-control when you were in the SAS.


----------



## wurzel (10 May 2009)

I hope you exercised better self-control when you were in the SAS.
		
Click to expand...

Well I always ask for a seat next to the emergency exit.

How is your futile letter hunt going?


----------



## wildduck (4 June 2009)

I hope you exercised better self-control when you were in the SAS.
		
Click to expand...

Well I always ask for a seat next to the emergency exit.

How is your futile letter hunt going?
		
Click to expand...

knowing zigg lost in the post.or under all the raving letters he writes about a subject he knows "sod all about"..Time for a clearout zigg


----------

