# Tally ho, Simon!



## LACS (22 August 2006)

"Tally ho, Simon

Another slightly botched attempt at spin from the new-look Tories. Dave Cameron has been careful to play down his countryside toff connections, so a recent addition to his A-list of preferred candidates has been kept rather quiet. Simon Hart, Cirencester-educated chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, whose primary aim until now has been to lead an army of tweed-clad rebels in favour of hunting, has been pushed on to the list. 'Ruddy-cheeked hunt fanatics aren't exactly the look Dave's going for, but Hart was persistent,' says a party activist."

The Observer, 20/8/06

Now this is going to be fun!


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Would have thought the Tories need reactionary candidates such as Hart like a hole in the head.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

Today's polls put Labour 9 points behind the Tories.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Mid term it looks as though Labour isn't doing too bad then. The Tories are going to have to do much better, over a much longer period, before you have reason to start getting cocky.

Labour will have a field day with the likes of Hart during an election campaign.


----------



## LACS (22 August 2006)

I tell you what, Labour are going to have an absolute riot with Cameron. What's the betting they put up posters of him in hunting gear during the election campaign?


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

To be honest, I dont think spin like that is going to dig the Labourparty out of the hole its dug for itself now.
Taxes up, unemployment up, reduced civil liberties, political correctness gone mad, laws people dont agree with...... the list gos on, not to mention a PM who doesnt listen to the public and leads a country to war because his mate says so, and still stays in office even when his own party are calling for him to step down.
Oh dear a PM who doesnt even listen to his cabinet, says it all about listening to the country doesn't it??


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

And I doubt jumping on the 'green' bandwaggon is going to help the Tories win the next election. People have rather longer memories than Cameron &amp; co give us credit for.

One moment they're claiming to modern, compassionate and forward-looking, and the next they're pledging to bring back hunting and take on the head of the CA as an A-list candidate!


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Dressing him up as a Carreg type might be funnier.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (22 August 2006)

But Hunting IS green, it's the most ecological form of fox control.


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

"modern, compassionate and forward-looking"
Yes the conservatives are all that.
I dont remember them suddenly saying they will bring back hunting...... I remember them saying they would bring it back within a week of it being banned when they get back in office!
I also remember labours 3 day week, strikes, union control, and the mess they left the country in when booted out of power. Guess what it too 18 yeard of the conservatives to get the country back on its feet, and a few years of Labour to f*ck it up again. Lets hope they dont do as good a job of messing it up as last time before they leave this time.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

More 'green' than sticking a red-hot poker up a fox's arse?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (22 August 2006)

More green than any other form of pest control because it targets old and seek animals which otherwise cause ecological damage.  

Definitely more green than the methods of mass extermination favoured by LACS.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

But more green than sticking a red-hot poker up a fox's arse?

Not sure LACS favours any mass extermination.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (22 August 2006)

LACS demand the use of a "line or lines" of guns to ensure that all foxes flushed out by dogs are shot and none are allowed to escape.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

I don't think they do. LACS would prefer it if hunts didn't try to kill foxes in the first place, but if they feel they absolutely have to the law demands that it is done as quickly as possible without a stressful prolonged pursuit.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

Karl,

And therefore no chance of escape.  Some lover of wildlife you are.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

What's wrong with demanding that if someone is hellbent on killing foxes they do so as quickly as possible?


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

You demand nothing from me.  As quickly as possible is not the issue.  If it were, there would be a ban on the use of snares, which apart from wounding by guns is probably the most slow and painful way to kill an animal.

The issue should be 'cleanly'.  There is no cleaner way to kill a fox than by the use of hounds.  As I witnessed 3 times this morning whilst hunting within the limits set by your toothless hunting act.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

""modern, compassionate and forward-looking"
Yes the conservatives are all that."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Ha.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

I didn't demand anything (in any case, so what if I did?), I said the law does. In fact it was Farmer Giles who first used the word.

We're talking about the Hunting Act here, not snaring. Just because snaring can lead to a prolonged and grizzy end, that doesn't stop the Hunting Act demanding that hunts that set out to kill foxes do so as quickly as possible.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

But a better alternative to the current bunch of clowns who are warmongers, liars and hypocrites.

What have you ever done to ensure the well-being, freedom and security of this nation?

Dodge soap and scrounge benefits per chance?


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Hercules, you're being silly again. In your view, does someone have to have averted a war or something before they are deemed worthy of contributing to an internet forum?

What on earth does this have to do with the Tories not being modern, compassionate and forward-looking?


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

We're talking about the Hunting Act here, not snaring. Just because snaring can lead to a prolonged and grizzy end, that doesn't stop the Hunting Act demanding that hunts that set out to kill foxes do so as quickly as possible.
		
Click to expand...

The hunting act and the use of snare are inextricably linked.  Pre ban - few landowners permitted their use.  Post ban - an increasing number permit their use.

Not too difficult to understand really, or would you prefer someone drew yuo a cartoon to explain it?

As I said previously, speed should not be the issue in the death of the fox.  It should be judged on how clean the kill is.  

Don't rats or rabbits have any feelings when they are pursued?


----------



## LACS (22 August 2006)

"Snares are a vital tool of wildlife management. Legal snares, properly set, are a humane means of control."

Countryside Alliance, June 2002.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

"Snares are a vital tool of wildlife management. Legal snares, properly set, are a humane means of control."

Countryside Alliance, June 2002.
		
Click to expand...

This quote should be taken in the context that when it was made, Hunting was another tool in the box that could be used to manage wildlife.  That tool has now been removed.

I would disagree that their use is humane, and certainly less humane than hunting with hounds.  However the fox population is still required to be controlled and the use of the snare (as endorsed by DEFRA) is becoming increasingly common.

Well done all you animal lovers!


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

"The hunting act and the use of snare are inextricably linked..."

Doesn't alter the fact that we were discussing the Hunting Act, which deals with hunting, not snaring. 

Not sure where you get the idea that few landowners permitted the use of snare pre-ban. I've seen estimates of 100,000 foxes killed by snares pre-ban.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Hunting was not a vital tool of wildlife management. 

"[2.4.2.4]...it is worth noting that farmers consistently over-estimate the number of foxes killed by foxhunts on their land, as these estimates can be compared with the records of the hunts themselves... For example, Baines et al. (1995) stated that the culling intensity quoted by farmers for hunts (0.47 foxes/km2/year; Table A2.6) was actually four times as high as the value quoted by the hunts themselves (0.11 foxes/km2/year). Similarly, in the study of Heydon &amp; Reynolds (2000) farmers over-estimated kills made by hunts on their land by six to 11 fold (Table A2.8)." White et al research report commissioned by the Burns Inquiry.

"[5.2.1] There was a five-fold difference between Wiltshire farmers estimates of the density of foxes killed by the hunt (averaging 0.46 foxes per km2) and figures provided by the hunt Masters (which revealed that in fact just 0.09 foxes were killed per km2). It is almost certain that farmers estimates of the number of foxes killed by the hunt on their land includes some double counting, possibly resulting from uncertainty regarding the fate of a fox which, at some stage of the chase, crossed their land. In contrast, figures provided by the Masters of Foxhounds were taken from their professional diaries, but do include some dead ground between farms within their territories. The same discrepancy was discovered independently by Heydon &amp; Reynolds (2000a), who found that farmers over-estimated the hunt bag by 7 to 12 times." MacDonald et al research commissioned for the Burns Inquiry.

It's clear that virtually the only people who believe this are the pig-ignorant farmers and the pig-ignorant hunters.

Do you support the use of snares?


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

Karl,

I support the requirement to control the fox population.  Although the snare probably kills more foxes (and other hapless wildlife), I do believe their use to be the least humane and least discriminate form of pest control.

The fact remains that those who require foxes to be controlled on their land, now use snares in increasing numbers and on increased areas of land - in direct relation to the Hunting Act (well done, you!).

So, not only do you dislike all hunters, you have clearly got problems with the farming community.  Which other section of society are you going to vent off at?  Gays, immigrants, gypsies.....?

Call yourself tolerant? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

There you go again, presenting your view as if it were fact. Where's your evidence that farmers are using snares in increasing numbers?

You really should seek help about this persecution complex you have. I don't dislike all hunters and have never posted comments to suggest I do. I have much more respect for those who acknowledge hunting is cruel but are honest enough to admit their enjoyment of hunting is more important to them than animal welfare considerations. I haven't got much time for puffed up ignoramuses.

Don't talk to me about tolerance when you post insults which allude to someone with Downs Syndrome. As with many of your pals, tolerance only becomes important to you when your own interests are affected.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

"Although the snare probably kills more foxes (and other hapless wildlife), I do believe their use to be the least humane and least discriminate form of pest control."

So you don't support the use of snares?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (22 August 2006)

I'd like to see more hunting and less snaring and shooting.  

Less animals would die and it would better target old, sick and suffering animals.


----------



## LACS (22 August 2006)

"Your hypocrisy knows no bounds."

I didn't know people still used expressions like that. I thought they could only be heard in pre-war British films. The devil take it, you blackguard!


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

"Although the snare probably kills more foxes (and other hapless wildlife), I do believe their use to be the least humane and least discriminate form of pest control."

So you don't support the use of snares?
		
Click to expand...

As I have clearly stated, I support the requirement to control the fox population, although in my eyes, the use of the snare is the least preferred option when animal welfare is taken into consideration  What part of that do you not understand?


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

''There you go again, presenting your view as if it were fact. Where's your evidence that farmers are using snares in increasing numbers?''

No written evidence, but based on extensive conversations with a large number of farmers and Landowners in my area - grass roots level experience, not just reading propoganda.

''You really should seek help about this persecution complex you have. I don't dislike all hunters and have never posted comments to suggest I do. I have much more respect for those who acknowledge hunting is cruel but are honest enough to admit their enjoyment of hunting is more important to them than animal welfare considerations. I haven't got much time for puffed up ignoramuses.''

No persecution complex here little man. I quite enjoy laughing at your oppressed attitude and flimsy arguments.  However, it mst be hard being on the losing side every time.  The plural of Ignoramus is ignorami. 

''Don't talk to me about tolerance when you post insults which allude to someone with Downs Syndrome. As with many of your pals, tolerance only becomes important to you when your own interests are affected.''

Bore Off


----------



## LACS (22 August 2006)

Add together Hercules, Aegywhatnot, Tom Fag and Nigel and you have the makings of a superb reality tv programme. They're the sort of people who'd look OTT on Little Britain. I openly laugh at all four of you.


----------



## LACS (22 August 2006)

And by the way, please please let it be true that Simon Hart wants to become a Tory MP. His election campaign really would be something to look forward to.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

Add together Hercules, Aegywhatnot, Tom Fag and Nigel and you have the makings of a superb reality tv programme. They're the sort of people who'd look OTT on Little Britain. I openly laugh at all four of you.
		
Click to expand...

You must find it quite easy to laugh out loud when your only audience is your computer screen.  
However, I would imagine that any form of laughter would be enjoyable for you whilst you live your miserable and lonely life hidden away from reality.


----------



## Onyxia (22 August 2006)

I tell you what, Labour are going to have an absolute riot with Cameron. What's the betting they put up posters of him in hunting gear during the election campaign?
..............................................................................................................
OMG! Posters ?? That would really make mechange my vote :crazy:
Anyone with half a brain( so that excludes you LACS) will vote fro whoever they feel will do the country as a whole the most good.
Posters, smear tactics and the like wont matter.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

"Add together Hercules, Aegywhatnot, Tom Fag and Nigel and you have the makings of a superb reality tv programme. They're the sort of people who'd look OTT on Little Britain. I openly laugh at all four of you. "

Ouch !! How hurtful !!


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

"Mid term it looks as though Labour isn't doing too bad then."


No. They are doing very well.

Where shall we start with sleazy labour? Bernie Ecclestone?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (23 August 2006)

"What's the betting they put up posters of him in hunting gear during the election campaign? "

Good policy, make Hunting a symbol of resistance to new labour.

What's the betting that it would get the tories more votes?


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

But with the Conservatives achieving their best poll results since 1992 I wouldn't get too cocky!


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

You seem to forget that the 2004 election campaign was staffed by a huge number of hunting folk. We campaigned for a month, getting involved in leafleting, canvassing, telephone canvassing, getting out the vote and telling at polling stations. 

We didn't mention hunting once, but managed to oust 29 anti-hunting Mps and sit many more back on vastly reduced majorities. Don't under-estimate the ability and eloquence of hunting people in the political sphere.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

Okay, so you do support the slow strangulation of wildlife by snaring.

So much for your concern for the welfare of animals.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

"No written evidence, but based on extensive conversations with a large number of farmers and Landowners in my area - grass roots level experience, not just reading propoganda."

In other words based on conversations with people with the same 'sporting' interests as yourself. Thought so.

"No persecution complex here little man. I quite enjoy laughing at your oppressed attitude and flimsy arguments. However, it mst be hard being on the losing side every time. The plural of Ignoramus is ignorami."

What a peculiar view of the world you have. I thought you and your pals were the ones whining about oppression, having fought a futile battle to stop a hunt ban. 

PS 'mst' should have a 'u' in it, and propoganda is actually spelt propaganda. 

"Bore Off"

As I said, tolerance only becomes important to you when your own interests are affected.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

I thought the hunting lobby was fond of claiming that hunting isn't important to people. If this is the case, most voters would wonder why the Tories want to waste Parliamentary time revisiting the hunting issue. 

Reminders of this policy during election time would leave many asking why the Tories haven't got more important things to do.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

Claire, the pro-hunters (backed by the CA) had high hopes of returning the Tories to power in 2004, that didn't happen. If you can't help a party regain power in the aftermath of an extremely unpopular war, I wouldn't over-estimate your importance next time round.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

Locally our results were encouraging. The Fitzwilliam campaigned in 2000 and didn't manage to oust the sitting anti-hunt MP. By 2004 we were far more organised and had sterling success in Peterborough &amp; Wellingborough, with Corby sitting on a very thin majority. 

This would suggest that as the years go by, we are becoming more skilled. Many of the hunts involved in 2004 had never done anything like it before. 2007/2008 will be one to watch with interest. Will these results of 2004 be replicated?

29 anti-hunting MPs ousted
21 anti-hunting MPs left with majorities of less than 3%
9 pro-hunting MPs with boosted majorities

In the wake of an unpopular war we might not have managed it, but we were also hampered by a leader who was tainted by the previous Tory administration.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

Interestingly the Countryside Alliance took no part in the actual campaigning. This was run entirely by Vote Ok. A totally separate beast, staffed by hunting and country people.


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

"We didn't mention hunting once"

and, ironically, your secretive silence says it all...


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

"What's the betting that it would get the tories more votes?"

Long, very very long.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (23 August 2006)

You're out of touch LACS.  Public opinion is extremely fickle.

You might have had it on your side once but the Hunting Act is increasingly being seend as a typical example of New Labour incompetance.

BTW I'm going to break it this weekend.  There is nothing you can do to stop me.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

I know that's what the CA would have liked the public to believe, but a national newspaper (Observer, I think) caught Simon Hart admitting that the CA needed to keep quite about its support for Vote OK.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

But the government which introduced the Hunting Act remained in power despite all your efforts and its massive unpopularity in the aftermath of the war.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

Funnily enough despite what you imagine, hunting people don't talk solely about hunting. We tend to also have strong and focused opinions on a range of topics. It happens that the hunting ban has galvanised many of us into getting politically active. In my mind engaging youngsters with the political process can only be a good thing. 

There was no need to mention hunting, though I'm sure it must have been blatantly obvious that we weren't locals when we roll out of muddy estates and landrovers - wearing checked shirts, flat caps and 'Liberty &amp; Livelihood' polo shirts!


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

The only link as far as I am aware was that many members of Vote Okay were also members of the CA. Naturally so given that Vote Okay was a group devised by countryside people, to get us politically active.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

It was always going to be a hard task. I don't think anybody realistically expected us to overturn them in 2004. The success we did achieve was a boost and we will be out again this time to build on it. Then we'll see what the result will be.


----------



## Hercules (23 August 2006)

But the government which introduced the Hunting Act remained in power despite all your efforts and its massive unpopularity in the aftermath of the war.
		
Click to expand...

The War still continues you fool.  However we are now fighting it in two different theatres.  It may have escaped your attention, but British soldiers are now dying in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  The levels of casualties will only increase, as will the unpopularity for the Operations. 

Along with Labour's lies, hypocrisy, knee-jerk legislation, immigration failure, sleaze etc etc, the issue of war will continue to be a massive (and likely to be bigger than before) issue. 

Although hunting is a secondary issue to the majority of the population, it is still incredibly important to a lot of people.  Once again, hundreds of those in support of hunting will be on the streets campaigning on behalf of candidates (not necessarily Tories) who demonstrate a sensible outlook on the hunting act and its absurdities.

How many could LACS muster up?  I would suggest no more than a couple of soap dodgers and a malnourished mongrel.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

Here are just 87 reasons why not to vote Labour in 2007. Since the date this list was compiled it has grown almost weekly. 

Private Mark Dobson, Tyne-Tees Regiment

Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall, Headquarters Strike Command

Flight Lieutenant David Stead, 47 Squadron, RAF Lyneham

Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith, 47 Squadron, RAF Lyneham

Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, 47 Squadron, RAF Lyneham

Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, 47 Squadron, RAF Lyneham

Chief Technician Richard Brown, RAF Lyneham

Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson, 47 Squadron, RAF Lyneham

Sergeant Robert OConnor, RAF Lyneham

Corporal David Williams, RAF Lyneham

Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones, Royal Signals

Sergeant Paul Connolly, Royal Electrical &amp; Mechanical Engineers

Acting Chief Petty Officer Simon Roger Owen

Private Pita Tukutukuwaqa, The Black Watch

Sergeant Stuart Gray, The Black Watch

Private Paul Lowe, The Black Watch

Private Scott McArdle, The Black Watch

Staff Sergeant Denise Michelle Rose, Royal Military Police

Private Kevin McHale, The Black Watch

Corporal Marc Taylor, Royal Electrical &amp; Mechanical Engineers

Gunner David Lawrence, Royal Artillery

Fusilier Stephen Jones, The Royal Welch Fusiliers

Lance Corporal Paul Thomas, The Light Infantry

Private Marc Ferns, The Black Watch

Private Lee OCallaghan, Princess of Wales Royal Regiment

Private Christopher Rayment, Princess of Wales Royal Regiment

Flight Lieutenant Kristian Gover, 33 Squadron RAF

Fusilier Gordon Gentle, Royal Highland Fusiliers

Corporal Richard Ivell, Royal Electrical &amp; Mechanical Engineers

Sapper Robert Thomson, Royal Engineers

Rifleman Vincent Windsor, Royal Green Jackets

Lance Corporal Andrew Craw, Argyll &amp; Sutherland Highlanders

Major James Stenner, Welsh Guards

Sergeant Norman Patterson, Cheshire Regiment

Private Ryan Thomas, Royal Regiment of Wales

Corporal Ian Plank, Royal Marines

Sergeant John Nightingale, 217 Transport Squadron

Fusilier Russell Beeston, 52nd Lowland Regiment

Major Matthew Titchener, 150 Provost Company

Company Sergeant Major Colin Wall, 150 Provost Company

Corporal Dewi Pritchard, 116 Provost Company

Captain David Jones, Queens Lancashire Regiment

Private Jason Smith, 52nd Lowland Regiment

Captain James Linton, 40 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery

Sergeant Simon Hamilton-Jewell, from Chessington

Corporal Russell Aston, from Swadlincote

Corporal Paul Long, from Colchester

Corporal Simon Miller, from Washington, Tyne &amp; Wear

Lance-Corporal Benjamin Hyde, from Northallerton

Lance-Corporal Thomas Keys, from Bala

Mr Leonard Harvey

Corporal David Shepherd

Gunner Duncan Pritchard

Private Andrew Kelly, from Tavistock

Lance Corporal James McCue, 7 Air Assault Battalion, REME

Fusilier Kelan Turrington, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Lance Corporal Ian Malone

Piper Christopher Muzvuru

Lance Corporal Karl Shearer, Household Cavalry Regiment

Lieutenant Alexander Tweedie, Household Cavalry Regiment

Staff Sergeant Chris Muir, Army School of Ammunition, Royal Logistic Corps

Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, 212 Signal Squadron, 1 (UK) Armoured Division HQ &amp; Signal Regiment, based in Herford, Germany

Marine Christopher Maddison, 9 Assault Squadron Royal Marines

Major Steve Ballard, 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines

Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, Household Cavalry Regiment

Corporal Stephen Allbutt, from Stoke-on-Trent

Trooper David Clarke, from Littleworth, Staffordshire

Lance Corporal Barry Stephen, from Perth

Sergeant Steven Roberts, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, from Bradford

Sapper Luke Allsopp, 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD), from North London

Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD), from Essex

Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main, Pilot, IX (B) Squadron

Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams, Navigator, IX (B) Squadron

Lieutenant Philip Green RN, 849 Squadron

Lieutenant Antony King RN, 849 Squadron, from Helston, Cornwall

Lieutenant Marc Lawrence RN, 849 Squadron

Lieutenant Philip West RN, 849 Squadron, from Budock Water, Cornwall

Lieutenant James Williams RN, 849 Squadron, from Falmouth, Cornwall

Lieutenant Andrew Wilson RN, 849 Squadron

Colour Sergeant John Cecil, Royal Marines, from Plymouth

Lance Bombardier Llywelyn Evans, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, from Llandudno

Captain Philip Stuart Guy, Royal Marines

Marine Sholto Hedenskog, Royal Marines

Sergeant Les Hehir, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery

Operator Mechanic (Communications) Second Class Ian Seymour RN, 148 Commando Battery Royal Artillery 

Warrant Officer Second Class Mark Stratford, Royal Marines

Major Jason Ward, Royal Marines


----------



## Hercules (23 August 2006)

Claire,

You can add another 28 names to that list for Iraq alone.

In Afghanistan we have lost 15 since May.

Well done Tony Blair.  700 hours debating the hunting issue, 7 hours devoed to committing troops to a long war.

Labour in power next time?  Absolutely no chance.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

"The War still continues you fool. However we are now fighting it in two different theatres. It may have escaped your attention, but British soldiers are now dying in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The levels of casualties will only increase, as will the unpopularity for the Operations. "

Public opposition to the war was at its height before the 2005 election, when 1m+ people marched through London and yet Labour was still returned to power, you ninny.

"Along with Labour's lies, hypocrisy, knee-jerk legislation, immigration failure, sleaze etc etc, the issue of war will continue to be a massive (and likely to be bigger than before) issue."

Why would it necessarily be bigger next time when all these accusations were hurled at the government by its opponents before the last election? 

"Although hunting is a secondary issue to the majority of the population, it is still incredibly important to a lot of people. Once again, hundreds of those in support of hunting will be on the streets campaigning on behalf of candidates (not necessarily Tories) who demonstrate a sensible outlook on the hunting act and its absurdities."

You don't half post a load of bollocks. The number of people who will switch their vote away from Labour as a direct result of the hunt ban is miniscule - the vast majority of hunters are either Tory or extreme right-wing. That's why pro-hunters who helped the Tories last year were told to keep the issue of hunting quiet, if they prattled on about bringing back hunting on the door steps they would have been told where to go.

"How many could LACS muster up? I would suggest no more than a couple of soap dodgers and a malnourished mongrel. "

It doesn't say much for the strength or sophistication of your lobby if you were soundly defeated by a couple of soap dodgers and a malnourished mongrel.


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

(a) I was under the impression that your beloved Tories were in favour of the war.

(b) To exploit the death of these brave soldiers to promote hunting on a site like this is disgusting. Show some respect.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

I couldn't find the updated list. With close friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan - many younger than me and on their second and third tours it struck a real chord with me. Every time they name a soldier killed, I thank God it isn't someone I know.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

On the basis of a sexed up dossier that was created by the Labour administration. The decision to support the war was based on flawed intelligence. Given the correct details I doubt that Conservatives would have been rushing to support an unprincipled war.

For your information my posting of that list was supposed to show just what a cock up Iraq has been. Nowhere has that been used as support for hunting, merely as reasons not to support Labour and their half baked foreign policy. The fact that I am pro-hunting and a Tory has nothing to do with the price of fish. Every time I read that list I thank God that to date none of my friends are on it. At the last count I can think of at least 12 of my friends - few of them older than me (I'm 23) who are either currently on a tour of Iraq &amp; Afghanistan or due to head there in the near future. Many of these will be on second or third tours. The majority are young officers, but several are the ordinary soldiers. These are the people that are clearing up the mess that this shower of a labour administration have created. So don't have the cheek to talk to me about respecting those young men and women who do a gallant job in the face of flagging public opinion, whilst equipped with tanks that don't run, radios that don't work, rifles that jam, inadequate body armour and boots that melt.


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

That's all perfectly valid but it has nothing to do with hunting. Your list was inappropriate.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

I believed that this thread had diverted itself towards politics in general. I forgot of course that the one track minds of the majority of this forum mean I must be shoe-horned into only discussing issues directly related to hunting on here! 

Oh no another post not related directly to hunting...better delete it! I assume you will be censoring Joshua for daring to post a thread about racing on the hunting debate.


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

I'm all for devations away from hunting, but not ALL deviations. I think you have to have a very good reason for posting lists of recently killed soldiers on an internet forum, and an even better one when when the forum is devoted to debating hunting. In my opinion it showed a lack of judgement on your part.


----------



## Hercules (23 August 2006)

(a) I was under the impression that your beloved Tories were in favour of the war.

(b) To exploit the death of these brave soldiers to promote hunting on a site like this is disgusting. Show some respect.
		
Click to expand...

Respect?  What would you know about respect?  As a serving soldier who has served in both the above theatres,  I feel that I am well within my rights to make comment.  If you don't like it, I couldn't care less.

With cretins like you residing within our shores, it beggars belief that people still sign up to defend the country and the likes of you.


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

If it makes you happy, then go ahead: post the names of dead heroes on a forum devoted to hunting.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

I beg to differ. I aimed to show why Labour is a party not to be trusted and not to be voted for. The most effective way of doing so was to illustrate that there are real people being killed in these 'theatres of war' and real families being affected by the news.

You are no better than those idiots who arrested Maya Evans outside the cenotaph for daring to stand and read a list of the dead of Iraq. 

The list has been on my blog for over a year and to date you are the only person who has accused me of poor judgement.


----------



## Hercules (23 August 2006)

If it makes you happy, then go ahead: post the names of dead heroes on a forum devoted to hunting.
		
Click to expand...

LACS, 

Thankyou for your kind permission.  

One thing that you should remember is that to you those on the list are merely names, to me and a lot of my friends, a couple of the names were colleagues.  Get over yourself.  

Am I one of your heroes, even though I have not been killed?


----------



## LACS (23 August 2006)

I don't think one needs to be pro-hunting to support the armed services. I'm sure you have many fine characteristics: I just don't happen to like your excessively strident and intolerant persona on here, or indeed your fanatical support for what I consider to be cruelty to animals. In another context perhaps we'd get along OK.


----------



## combat_claire (23 August 2006)

I don't like your intolerant and strident persona either, but guess what? We'll both have to live with it won't we!


----------



## Hercules (23 August 2006)

''Public opposition to the war was at its height before the 2005 election, when 1m+ people marched through London and yet Labour was still returned to power, you ninny.''


The march about whch you spout took place in 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to persuade Blair not to commit troops to war.  This was clearly before we started taking casualties and before we committed ourselves to more intense warfighting and casualties in Afghanistan.  

None of those who participated in that march will have changed their perception about the legality and reason for war.  Many who initially supported the war have now changed their point of view.  I, and many of my peers are included.

I would therefore guarantee you that the issue of war and the support (lack of) shown to British Troops by this lacklustre government will be a massive and probably decisive issue.


----------



## Hercules (23 August 2006)

''I just don't happen to like your excessively strident and intolerant persona on here,''

I am not intolerant, I just don't suffer fools and bigots gladly.


''In another context perhaps we'd get along OK.''

You reckon?  Unlikely.


----------



## wurzel (23 August 2006)

Do you support the British armed forces?

have you been a member ?


----------



## allijudd (24 August 2006)

"Claire, the pro-hunters (backed by the CA) had high hopes of returning the Tories to power in 2004, that didn't happen. If you can't help a party regain power in the aftermath of an extremely unpopular war, I wouldn't over-estimate your importance next time round."
Looks like the antis brought the subject of an unpopular war into this discussion and now claiming its disrespectful!!! Do you always forget your topic of conversation so quickly? or only when you are losing the argument?


----------



## Doreys_Mum (24 August 2006)

Unfortunatly, even a marginally unpopular war couldn't replace the marginally repulsive labour party with whatever it was leading the tories at the time...

But now it's a higly unpopular war, more and more boys dying all the time, and more and more promises of more troops going out, and they're now a highly repulsive labour party, what with two shags, blair getting his bod out on (yet another free) holiday, and now a atmosphere of racism thanks to the government and the press telling everyone that it's THEIR responsibility to watch out for terrorists and yobs whilst their politicians get nice pension packages for shagging as many secretaries as are willing (which is actually scarily a lot...)

With with Cameleon Dave, tories are set to win - people won't remember their affairs and scandle (major and currie, who WANTS to remember...) after 10 years of labour.


----------



## Paul T (24 August 2006)

"None of those who participated in that march will have changed their perception about the legality and reason for war. Many who initially supported the war have now changed their point of view. I, and many of my peers are included."

Me too. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?


----------



## combat_claire (24 August 2006)

No less a wonderful thing than an accurate dossier of intelligence..


----------



## Hercules (24 August 2006)

''Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?''

It is.  I bet you now wish that the Hunting Act had not been passed!!


----------



## Paul T (25 August 2006)

As my original support for the war was based on opposition of what Hussein was doing to his own people, not the supposed threat he posed to the West, I doubt more accurate intelligence would have changed my opinion.


----------



## Paul T (25 August 2006)

Why would I wish that when it has prevented thousands of animals from being hunted down and savaged to death by hounds, despite the efforts of your pals who choose to criminalise themselves?


----------



## Hercules (25 August 2006)

Karl,

The Hunting Act has prevented nothing.  Shame that you weren't out following a cub trail with me this morning.  Then you would have seen how effective the Act really is.

If you are honest with yourself, you knew that anyway.


----------



## Paul T (25 August 2006)

As I said, despite the efforts of your pals to criminalise themselves. There will always be boneheads who break the law, and if you choose to go out with them cub hunting that's up to you. It doesn't stop the Act being effective in many other cases.


----------



## Hercules (25 August 2006)

If the Act was effective and unambiguous with no loop holes, why has here been only one prosecution?  Why do the anti's claim that most hunts continue to break the law, but cannot provide sufficient evidence?  Why can noone on this forum give a definitive answer as to whether or not A-A's actions are illegal?

Foxes continue to be killed whilst trail hunting.  Foxes continue to die by snare.  Foxes continue to die by gun.

Effective?  Look at the facts 'bonehead'!


----------



## LACS (25 August 2006)

"Why can noone on this forum give a definitive answer as to whether or not A-A's actions are illegal?"

They aren't illegal.


----------



## Hercules (25 August 2006)

Explain to me and the rest of the forum why not.

4 dogs, no guns and full intent.


----------

