The jolly sport of foxhunting

Extract below taken from The Whitby Gazette

Published on Friday 16 December 2011 10:16

A COUPLE have been devastated after hounds from the Goathland Hunt savaged and killed their cat.

Elderly tabby Moppet, aged 18, was outside her home in Stoupe Brow, near Ravenscar, when 27 hunting dogs bounded onto land belonging to her owners Les and Margaret Atkinson.

The dogs brutally attacked the cat before a huntsman picked up a lifeless and bloodied Moppet and rode away.
Hours later members of the hunt, which was a joint expedition between Goathland and Staintondale parties held earlier this month, were confronted by the Atkinsons – and it was admitted that Moppet had been killed.

Moppet’s body was returned to the Atkinsons by members of the hunt two days after she was killed and she has now been buried. A younger cat belonging to the Atkinsons, George, escaped the dogs by hiding in a stable.
______________________________________________________________________________________

December 26th

Conservative agriculture minister Jim Paice has said that the hunting act "simply dosent work", speaking during a visit to hunt kennels in his constituency near Peterborough he reminded reporters that as part of the coalition agreement, at some point there would be a free vote on whether to repeal the hunting ban.

Mr Paice also confirmed that he was a supporter of hunting with dogs

North Devon Liberal Democrat MP Nick Harvey said the law was "dangerous" because of the impracticalities of trying to enforce it.

Devon and Cornwall Police have never issued any cautions, fines or convicted anyone associated with hunting since the ban came into effect, and Mr Harvey said: "I think Parliament has passed a piece of legislation that it is not possible in practice to implement, and I think that's dangerous.

"The message that sends out is that some people's activities are beyond the arm of the law."

They pull our strings, and we jump.

I have no particular views about hunting, although I could be persuaded to favour it strongly if there were any proposal to organise the pursuit of a few Tories who, once caught, could be given a good whipping before being torn apart by a few bad-tempered dogs. I would gladly do the 'beating' to flush the buggers out, if it helped...

A lot of people say that it's unfair to describe Americans as having had an Irony by-pass.

A lot of people, but not everyone.

RockOnBrother

I do not have a problem with shooting foxes, if a particular fox is a nuisance to a farmer then he has every right to shoot the fox, this is not called "sport", its simply called attempting to sustain your livelyhood and prevent your livestock from been depleted by wild animals.

The so called "Fox Hunters" who refer to their passtime as sport, are the ones who dress up in red waistcoats and silly hats, then charge around the countryside on horseback with a silly trumpet shouting "tally ho".

It is not a sport, it is a tradition based on class structure, its a cruel way of dealing with vermin and nuisance foxes, it is supposed to be ilegal, but neither the police or any of the main animal charities seem to care.

witchfinder. I share your abhorrence of any form of animal cruelty, but perhaps you should have mentioned that the royal family (which you admire so much) are keen supporters of such behaviour.

The old duke, who was given far too much news coverage over the weekend, had been "due to lead" the Boxing Day shoot at Sandringham. While the rest of us settle for taking the dog for a walk in the park or falling asleep in front of the telly, many toffs take their pleasure from killing. I remember reading once how the said duke spotted two ducks mating in Windsor Great Park and bellowed at one of his servants "have them shot!". Perhaps somebody should have ordered that for him before he had his four useless and mostly unpleasant kids.

It's thought that Charles was behind the failure to invite Blair and Brown to the royal wedding, while invitations were extended to Thatcher (too ill to attend though) and Major. One theory is that the reason was Cherie Blair's refusal to curtsey to the queen. A more likely explanation is because Blair and Brown were responsible for the law which made foxhunting illegal. Charles was a keen hunter, and when his sons were still quite young, he took them on a hunt and 'blooded' them - he smeared on their faces the blood of a fox which had recently been ripped to pieces. In my book, that's tantamount to child abuse, but no more than I'd expect from such a vile man who treated his first wife so abominably.

I am well aware that most male members of the royal family have participated in fox hunting, I do not agree with hunting foxes with packs of hounds and I disagree with Prince Philip.

I have friends who support fox hunting, and though I disagree with their views, it does not interefere with our friendship.

My next door neighbour is chairman of the local cnservative club, we are good neighbours but we keep away from the subject of politics.

I guess I would not be too far wrong if I suggested that todays younger royals would be more interested in going clubbing than going on a fox hunt, the royals must know that public opinion is very much against this so called sport.

I am indeed a true and loyal supporter of the Crown, I have ascertained this fact by making a solemn vow, but I still think that the Duke of Edinburgh is a pratt.

Essentially, the whole business was training for cavalry, and I think that anyone who has tried riding will at least (grudgingly) admire the skill and courage of those who leap on those bloody great things over hedges and ditches. That said, the whole business is archaic, cruel and socially-divisive, a squalid celebration of class-dominance and uselessness. The point about sitting on those noble (but pretty brainless) monsters is that you are up there looking down on us peasants, equal only with those others who can afford to be seven or eight feet high. It's survival parallels all the other ways the boss class fools the mugs into letting them keep up their nonsense when there is no use for it whatever.

Men on horseback conquered most of South America, but barbed-wire put a stop to the Cavalry Charge.
Just because something worked once doesn't mean that it will always work.

oftenwrong wrote:Men on horseback conquered most of South America, but barbed-wire put a stop to the Cavalry Charge.
Just because something worked once doesn't mean that it will always work.

It manifestly doesn't work but, like golf and such, it is important for our masters to spend money to keep out the oiks, so that they can form networks and marry the right sort.

Penderyn wrote:Essentially, the whole business was training for cavalry, and I think that anyone who has tried riding will at least (grudgingly) admire the skill and courage of those who leap on those bloody great things over hedges and ditches. That said, the whole business is archaic, cruel and socially-divisive, a squalid celebration of class-dominance and uselessness. The point about sitting on those noble (but pretty brainless) monsters is that you are up there looking down on us peasants, equal only with those others who can afford to be seven or eight feet high. It's survival parallels all the other ways the boss class fools the mugs into letting them keep up their nonsense when there is no use for it whatever.

PENDERYN
i Could not give a better summary of foxhunting is I tried. its so squalid I cannot stand it. there is nothing noble in this at all. hate it when they come though our village. just feel like arming the foxes myself. as it not hunting for food or anything like that. its like seeing an upper class mob in action

Penderyn wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:Men on horseback conquered most of South America, but barbed-wire put a stop to the Cavalry Charge.
Just because something worked once doesn't mean that it will always work.

It manifestly doesn't work but, like golf and such, it is important for our masters to spend money to keep out the oiks, so that they can form networks and marry the right sort.

I cannot work out who is the most stupid the horse or the idiot who sits on its back. my money is on the horse myself

A short history of the foxhunt,
AD43 First recorded mentions of hunting come under the Romans. The Romans brought new breeds of foxhounds, the brown hare, and new species of deer as quarry

· 1066 The Normans arrive with their Talbot and Gascon foxhounds. Deer and boar hunting becomes a royal preserve

· 1100 William II killed by an arrow while hunting deer in the New Forest

· 1340 Medieval laws on hunting formalised: foxes begin to be hunted along with deer. Edward I believed to have the first royal foxhound pack

· 1534 Earliest properly recorded foxhunt, in Norfolk

· 1660 After the restoration of the monarchy hunting grows as a sport: the first dedicated foxhound packs emerge but game remain prime quarry

· 1670s Britain's oldest foxhunt, the Bilsdale in Yorkshire, founded

· 1696 The Quorn hunt founded

· 1760 The first enclosure acts are passed, making deer hunting harder and fox hunting more common. The new hedges and fences encourage jumping

· 1824 SPCA founded - it becomes the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 20 years later


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/19/hunting.immigrationpolicy

It does have the obvious advantage that the braying classes sticking together makes them easy to avoid when looking for a decent pub.

If all the £100m's+ of pounds spent on debating and passing laws to ban foxhunting had been spent on feeding the poor here and abroad and I would have some sympathy with the comments on here. Fox or child?

Comments on the hunters. Does that apply to shooting pheasants, deer etc. by 'ordinary' people. These are not always killed outright.

Fox Hunting is a Class thing I agree. Agreed they could better spend their money in charitable activity, but if the truth were known, many of us use our money to enjoy ourselves. Maybe not such extravagance as we can't afford it.

Fox Hunting. Take it or leave it. The 'Toffs'. Take them or leave them.

I feel sorry for anyone who loses a pet. But pets and animals are killed every day of the week on roads and by wild animals.

Hang on a minute whileI put my tin hat on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9751253/David-Camerons-hunt-convicted-as-judge-questions-RSPCAs-330000-prosecution-costs.html#

The RSPCA say they brought the prosecution against the Heythrop Hunt because previous experience suggested a reluctance on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service to do so.

There's never one of those assault-rifle-carriers around when you want one.

Gavin Grant: 'If David Cameron wants a vote on hunting let him have it. He will lose'

Extracts from an article by Charlie Cooper:-

Gavin Grant, the RSPCA’s bullish chief executive, is not afraid to say what he thinks about people who hunt animals illegally. “Those who get a kick out of it, those who consciously abuse animals for profit or for pleasure – they are the enemies of the animals, and that makes them the enemies of the RSPCA,” he says.

For Mr Grant, the successful prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt – the first of its kind – has capped an eventful first year at the helm of Britain’s oldest animal-welfare charity. Since taking over in January, he has collided with his own staff over budget cuts; with the National Farmers Union over the badger cull; and now with the hunting lobby and their allies at the top of government.

Mr Grant previously worked for ‘The Body Shop’, where he helped to orchestrate a campaign to end the use of animal testing for cosmetics. He says: “It’s great to see the coalition bringing forward legislation to grant gay people the same rights to marriage as straight people, so the notion that at the same time we could reintroduce something that was seen as appropriate in the 19th century and very inappropriate in the 20th century is absolutely bizarre. If the Prime Minister feels he wants to have his vote then let him have his vote. He will discover he’s going to lose and maybe that’s necessary to end this discussion about the Act.”

For the full article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gavin-grant-if-david-cameron-wants-a-vote-on-hunting-let-him-have-it-he-will-lose-8431156.html

“Hunting the hunters shouldn't be the RSPCA's job”

Some letters to ‘The Guardian’ on this subject:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/25/hunting-hunters-shouldnt-rspca-job

If all the time and money spent on Parliamentary time talking and debating hunting a few foxes, and time and effort by others put into protecting them were spent on protecting children a few less children would be going hungry.
If man hadn't wiped out the grey wolf in the 17th century in Britain foxes would have had natural predators to keep them under control.

It's all a case of Priorities. Man or beast. Child or cub.

I've put my tin hat on!!!

A hunt chasing the wrong fox

An editorial from ‘The Independent’:-

“In the aftermath of the RSPCA's successful private prosecution of the Cotswolds' Heythrop Hunt – which saw an entire hunt charged and two prominent members also fined – the charity has come in for a drubbing.

First come accusations of political motivation, on account of the Heythrop being Cameron's local hunt and the government having backed off from the Tory-promised free vote on a repeal of the ban. The RSPCA denies the allegation, claiming that the hundreds of hours of video footage constituted compelling evidence of illegal hunting with dogs. Moreover, the charge of playing politics is one that cuts both ways; after all, one of the fined Heythrop huntsmen is now considering taking the matter to Cameron, in the latter's role as local MP.

The charity has also been criticised on the grounds of cost. Indeed, no less a figure than the presiding judge himself (rather ill-advisedly) described the RSPCA's £330,000 outlay on the case as ‘staggering’. Why, the argument runs, should donations made by the public for the purposes of ensuring animal welfare be used to pursue high-profile law suits? Why, indeed. After all, the hunting ban has been in place for nearly eight years now. It should hardly need a private prosecution to enforce the legislation. Yet the RSPCA's recent success can only suggest that, whether from lack of resources or lack of interest, traditional enforcement channels are not proving wholly effective.

The simple fact is that the Heythrop Hunt has been breaking the law. No amount of smearing or sneering will change that. Full marks to the RSPCA.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/editorial-a-hunt-chasing-the-wrong-fox-8434263.html

Speaking of the RSPCA, did you know that they kill 50% of the animals they save, weird world innit.

The point about euthanising of 'rescued' animals, as you know quite well, is that
1) Very many are so damaged as a result of ill treatment or neglect that it's kinder to put them to sleep and out of pain
2) Due to animals being irresponsibly let to breed, there are just too many unwanted animals and homes cannot be found for all of them

Rehoming a rescued animal is not a walk in the park, and often rehoming is unsuccessful, leading to further stress and suffering for the animal.

Re the RSPCA's action, I think it's outrageous, in a country where we have laws against hunting with dogs that a charitable organisation has to bring a private prosecution, but I'm glad they did, because it does highlight the fact that the law is being flouted.

Whatever happened to the old response of, "Alright, Guv, you've got me bang to rights, I'll come quietly!"

In this age of compensation litigation, the first action of many people upon conviction is to scream for an Appeal.

Unleashing the dogs of woe

From a blog by Paul Kavanagh (Twitter: @weegingerdug):-

"It says a lot about the priorities of our Tory overlords that one of the first votes in the Commons is to be a vote to legalise the barbaric cruelty of tearing apart creatures they don’t control with creatures that they do. It’s not just the intrinsic repulsion that anyone with a basic capacity for empathy feels towards the braying proponents of ritualised cruelty to animals, fox hunting is a metaphor for the Conservatives’ view of the lower orders. Cameron’s government seeks to unleash the dogs of woe on all of us, and that has a lot to do with why fox hunting excites such strong passions. We are all foxes now.

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of will they won’t they about whether the SNP will oppose the Tories’ attempts to reintroduce fox hunting in England. It’s the classic example of an England only issue. Currently the SNP is the only party which is taking a party line on the issue of fox hunting. All the other parties allow individual MPs to vote according to the dictates of their own consciences. The SNP should do exactly the same.

A majority Tory government puts far bigger issues at stake than the rights of foxes, like for example the rights of human beings, the assault that is about to begin on the poor, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. But fox hunting is the traditional pursuit of the British upper classes and their implacable belief that they are born to rule, that they have the right to ride roughshod over anything and anyone which gets in their way. Fox hunting symbolises all of that, and that is what makes it such a powerfully emotive issue."

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/unleashing-the-dogs-of-woe/

The argument against fox-hunting is that it prima facie involves cruelty to animals.

Introducing class-war immediately dilutes the strength of the argument and plays directly into the hands of the Countryside Alliance who are perfectly happy to argue "symbolism" for as long as you like.

Mind you, the symbolism is marked - little wonder people comment on it.

However, I do think that's right - it's on the basic level a simple matter of do we or don't we approve cruelty to animals.

In 2007, Cameron had only announced three policies. To legalise foxhunting, to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, and to match Labour’s spending plans “pound for pound”. For some reason, we never heard any more about the last of those (or his claim that Labour’s biggest mistake was “too much regulation of the banks”) after the global credit crunch occurred. However, now that we have a majority Tory government, the first two items are near the top of the agenda, and if recent stories are to be believed, Cameron has asked Nicola Sturgeon if the SNP will abstain on a vote to legalise foxhunting south of the border, possibly in return for some more devolved powers to Holyrood. (Two weeks ago Cameron was scaring people into voting Tory with talk of Labour/SNP deals – what exactly is he doing now?)

If it’s true, it shows what appalling priorities Cameron has. Foxhunting really is the issue which rouses the Establishment to pull out all the stops. Charles Windsor was most upset when the barbaric pursuit was stopped, somewhat belatedly by Blair in 2004 and with feeble legislation which still allowed people to keep packs of dogs and participate in drag-hunting. (The ban may even be the reason why, as Charles was responsible for the guest list, two former Labour PMs weren’t invited to William and Kate’s wedding but two former Tory PMs were.) The Parliament Act of 1949 had to be used to force the banning legislation through the House of Lords.

The Scottish Parliament outlawed foxhunting in 2002, and that ban will stay in place whatever happens at Westminster. EVEL, creating first and second class MPs, hasn’t been brought into law yet, but Cameron hopes that the SNP will see this as an English-only issue. Four points spring to mind:-
- Foxhunting isn’t a constitutional matter, it’s about the treatment of wild animals.
- Foxes don’t respect national boundaries.
- Other parties will have a free vote on this, so why shouldn’t the SNP?
- Sturgeon promised that the SNP would seek to create "a progressive alliance across the UK". This would be a good issue on which to start.

The bottom line is that foxhunting is cruel to animals, not just to the foxes but also to the dogs, which are starved to make them more vicious. I’m sure the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and, where necessary, the Hunt Saboteurs Association will make their contributions to inhibit any return of this disgusting practice. Did you know that two other cruel pursuits - cock-fighting and dog-fighting - were banned way back in 1835? Why? No doubt because they were working class ‘sports’. It took until 2004 for foxhunting to be banned, and now that the toffs are in full control again, one of their first proposals is to bring it back. It would be hard to find a more obvious manifestation of class warfare than this, and I don’t think it hurts to fight it on two fronts.

What is fox hunting?

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/hunting-with-dogs-fox-hunting

What is fox hunting?

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible?

An example of how Cameron claims to be a "one-nation Tory", flying in the face of the vast majority of public opinion:-

Cameron thanks fox hunters for helping him win election in celebratory text message

From an article by Ben Glaze:-

Cameron sent fox hunters a text thanking them for their crucial election backing within minutes of realising he had snatched victory. He went out of his way to pay tribute to blood sports enthusiasts who had swooped on key battlegrounds to help boost the Tory vote. And he is set to reward them in the Queen’s Speech by paving the way for MPs to scrap the 10-year-old hunting ban.

Pro-hunt group Vote-OK was set-up the day after the Hunting Act was signed into law in November 2004. It is chaired by Cameron’s father-in-law Viscount Astor. Target constituencies for their campaigners had included Cheltenham, where Tory Alex Chalk ousted his anti-hunting Lib Dem rival; Oxford West & Abingdon, where Conservative Nicola Blackwood held her seat; and Bury North, where David Nuttall was re-elected.

In a message signed by Viscount Astor, the Tory peer told supporters: “What you achieved is to help return a Conservative government with an overall majority. There is more work to do. We have to help the government achieve its manifesto commitment on repeal of the Hunting Act.”

The Conservative manifesto pledged to give MPs “the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time”. League Against Cruel Sports spokesman Chris Pitt said: “We would hope the Prime Minister acts for the 80% who want to see the Hunting Act remain in place, rather than pander to a vocal minority of blood sport enthusiasts”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-thanks-fox-hunters-5730704

The strength of the Countryside Alliance is a weakness for Tory candidates, because their territory has more fields and trees than there are voters.

Shaun Woodward held the Witney seat before making it available to David Cameron. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10434670/Shaun-Woodward-to-stand-down-from-Parliament.html

Mr Woodward occupied a large Manor House in the Constituency, but upon crossing the floor of the Commons to join the Labour Party, the local huntin' folk stopped visiting Sarsden, and his butler resigned because he had so little to do thereafter.

Oh dear poor butler,could they not have chased him instead of the fox when he was a Tory/still is a tory by the sounds of it,just because his friends did not visit,tory tossers.

Just had a reply from my MP on the issue of fox hunting and badger culling- not surprised to report he is fully in support of the government's position on both and would definitely vote to repeal the hunting ban.

I voted against this barbarian, but apparently many in my area voted for him