" I just thought I would see how it went for a few days"

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:49:06 GMT

PS That is if it's not covered by copyright

Wynne

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:48:22 GMT

I'll ask mynurse-who's considerably more computer-literate than I am

Wynne

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

vetbl.locum — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:31:13 GMT

Could you cut & paste article

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

To get back to the OP Very good points made by Chris Laurence during a debate in BVA council-read it in this weeks VR

Wynne

[/quote]

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:53:45 GMT

To get back to the OP Very good points made by Chris Laurence during a debate in BVA council-read it in this weeks VR

Wynne

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

James Laidlaw — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:05:15 GMT

Since the Leveson inquiry I don't have much faith in any of the main stream press. Present press info as "the facts" doesn't always equal "the facts"

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:57:24 GMT

[quote user="vetbl.locum"]Left or Right wing ....that is so 70's[/quote]

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Tell me, is the telegraph right wing or left wing when it comes to newspapers?[/quote]

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

Unless of course you believe that any publication other than Socialist Worker has a hidden agenda and probably is part of a conspiracy.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Richard Larkin — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:23:37 GMT

For what its worth I don't agree with fox hunting as I have welfare concerns regarding the chase and the kill of the quarry. However needless to say even less humane deaths are endured by animals countless times over on a daily basis by both being hunted by other animals , through starvation or being left wounded.

Both sides of this hunting debate to me seem to be engineered by the press. May be I am wrong but many more column inches in the press both now and in the past have been used to discuss the class issue regarding hunts and hunt supporters, politically motivated issues ie Countryside alliance rallies, Rspca prosecutions and the wide difference in rural and urban perceptions of the countryside, the latter of which I hold mostly responsible for this unending debate, rather than the actual welfare concerns which are surely the crux of the issue.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Richard Larkin — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:06:02 GMT

Blooming heck,

Just returned to my computer after going away for a week after starting this thread on a whinge about my weekend on call and owners procrastinating in seeking veterinary advice, don't remember mentioning hunting but seems the festive spirit has made the forum quite loquacious!!

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

vetbl.locum — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:24:18 GMT

Left or Right wing ....that is so 70's

In the centre along with Dave C , Lib Dems and nuLabour

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Tell me, is the telegraph right wing or left wing when it comes to newspapers?

[/quote]

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

James Laidlaw — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 08:20:25 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Depends who you ask. If you put on a yellow jacket and walk up to people in a big town or city and ask if they think it should be banned, through indifference and ignorance they say yes. Most of them don't care and they have never actually considered it.[/quote]

So they can only be against fox hunting through ingnorance and indifference? Pot, kettle, yada yada...

Michael, I even occasionally agree with you on things, but this post was so full of anecdote and hyperbole that I don't know where to begin deconstructing it. There's probably some good arguments both for and against hunting, but none existed in your post. I do watch house, (one season left to go - it started getting a bit slow) which is why I am quite sceptical of anything anyone says. Including yourself.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

James Laidlaw — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:10:31 GMT

Tell me, is the telegraph right wing or left wing when it comes to newspapers?

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Mark Holmes — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:56:42 GMT

[quote user="vetbl.locum"]

Article in Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9780817/Our-once-great-RSPCA-is-being-destroyed-by-a-militant-tendency.html

About their new political direction and hunting case.

Can any one confirm exactly what if any powers RSPCA Inspectors have?

Thanks

[/quote] Ah I see, they had footage of the DC local hunt and needed to get a QC to watch it all to see if a law had been broken. Hmmm that doesn't sound political at all.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:47:44 GMT

Food for thought:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9776275/Local-RSPCA-branch-to-close-despite-head-office-spending-326k-prosecuting-David-Camerons-local-hunt.html

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:45:09 GMT

[quote user="vetbl.locum"]Can any one confirm exactly what if any powers RSPCA Inspectors have?[/quote]

Absolutely none. They are just ordinary civilians like you or I.

That doesn't stop them abusing their perceived power and self appointed title.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

vetbl.locum — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:34:58 GMT

Article in Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9780817/Our-once-great-RSPCA-is-being-destroyed-by-a-militant-tendency.html

About their new political direction and hunting case.

Can any one confirm exactly what if any powers RSPCA Inspectors have?

Thanks

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:35:07 GMT

[quote user="Rajat"]

I highlight a few from link 2 for those of you who prefer the comfort of VS.org :

Topline Results

Survey One

[/quote]

Classic and obvious illustration that if you word the questions right you get the answers you want.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Rajat — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:51:48 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"][quote user="James Laidlaw"]Got the stats to back that comment up? It's just as ridiculous a comment to make as the toffs comments without any data to back it up.[/quote][/quote]

Totally agree w/James - how do you know?

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]There was a survey done with 59% against the ban.[/quote]

Sounds like a majority to me unless the definition of the word 'majority' has changed .

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Personally I find white kids talking as if they are black offensive[/quote]

Easy now mah man - is it offensive to you if black people talk like they are white as well? How do black people talk anyways, I think what you are referring to is 'street slang' rather than a form of speech specific to an ethnic group. But that is another (potentially heated!) discussion.

I take your point re the life of modern pets and so on and do agree. That does not make the other percieved 'wrong' of animal (fox) cruelty right. That you don't believe it to be cruel (or so easily put it under the 'we all suffer so this suffering too is ok' umbrella) and I do is actually not as important as what the law and the people of the country say.

Re the stats Michael if you look at these 2 websites (1, 2 ) they have some interesting statistics on interviews w/approx 2000 people countrywide on these matters. There appears to be minority support for hunting foxes especially with dogs. There appears to be sympathy for the rural way of life and farmers but not for what many consider to be Britain's version of bull fighting.

I highlight a few from link 2 for those of you who prefer the comfort of VS.org :

Topline Results

Survey One

Results based on 2,110 face-to-face interviews conducted with adults aged 15+ in Great Britain.
Fieldwork was conducted from 1-7 February 2008.
Results are based on all respondents (2,110) unless otherwise stated.
Data is weighted to the known profile of Great Britain.
Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses or computer rounding.

Q1 Now a question about sports where animals are set on other animals to fight or kill them.

These activities are currently illegal in the United Kingdom.

For each one I read out, please tell me whether you think it should or should not be made legal again.

	Yes, should be made legal again	no, should not be made legal again	Don't Know
	%	%	%
Dog fighting	2	96	2
Badger Baiting	4	93	4
Fox hunting	22	73	6
Deer Hunting	12	81	6
Hare hunting and coursing	12	82	8

Survey Two

Results based on 2,007 face-to-face interviews conducted with adults aged 15+ in Great Britain across 181 sampling points.
Fieldwork was conducted from 8 - 14 February 2008.
Results are based on all respondents (2,007) unless otherwise stated.
Data is weighted to the known profile of Great Britain.
Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses or computer rounding.

Q1 Now a question about hunting with dogs (that is fox hunting, deer hunting, stag hunting and hare hunting and coursing) Hunting with dogs is illegal in Great Britain - but despite this sometimes people still take part.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that …

People should be allowed to break the law banning hunting with dogs.

	%
Strongly agree	6
Tend to agree	8
Neither agree nor disagree	13
Tend to disagree	16
Strongly disagree	55
Don't know/depends	2
Agree	15
Disagree	71

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:41:42 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Got the stats to back that comment up? It's just as ridiculous a comment to make as the toffs comments without any data to back it up.[/quote]

There was a survey done with 59% against the ban.

Depends who you ask. If you put on a yellow jacket and walk up to people in a big town or city and ask if they think it should be banned, through indifference and ignorance they say yes. Most of them don't care and they have never actually considered it.

If you ask people if they will pay more for meat if reared to higher welfare standards, they say yes (we are conditioned to tell people what they want to hear) then they go into Tesco and put 2 chickens in the trolley for £5. People lie - don't you watch 'House'?

I suspect if you put on a march to ban fox hunting in 2002 you wouldn't have got 400,000 who cared enough to turn out.

What all these things consist of are small erosions of the rural way of life. Next they will attack fishing or shooting etc..........

Personally I find white kids talking as if they are black offensive (the word ask has no 'r'). I'm not a fan of trousers half way down their backside showing their underwear (male or female). Wearing hats indoors. I find that offensive.

Yet a little dog, cooped up in a flat, walked for half an hour a day. Dyed pink at the grooming parlour. Feed inappropriate feed. Not able to socialise with members of its own kind. Reproductive organs removed. Compare that with a foxhound. Which dog is able to express normal behaviour.

We all suffer in life. Every one of us and every fox will die. I'm not sure I like the look of dying of natural causes - Think I'd rather it was quick at the mercy of a pack of hounds.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

James Laidlaw — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:37:43 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

Most people really don't care either way. There are a few strongly in support and a minor number strongly against.

[/quote] Got the stats to back that comment up? It's just as ridiculous a comment to make as the toffs comments without any data to back it up.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:43:17 GMT

[quote user="Rajat"]The law is a recent one supported by the majority of the people. [/quote]

Most people really don't care either way. There are a few strongly in support and a minor number strongly against.

[quote user="Rajat"] if their prosecutions bring about a change in the 'culture 'of what the majority of the populace considers to be organised countrywide animal cruelty then surely that is a good use of funds.[/quote]

But it won't. Hunting as it is will continue. They do not have the resources to prosecute them all when their drag hunt accidentally end up chasing a fox. All hunts should have the means available to dispatch the fox should this occur.

Everything will be just the same, just the RSPCA will be poorer.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Rajat — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:33:00 GMT

This is an interesting debate and I think exemplifies the different opinions on hunting, especially the country- town divide. I say this is as someone who has lived in the UK for 12 years but is not a native of this country so am looking at this from a somewhat neutral point of view.

I can see why hunting as a tradition is something country folk want to hold onto, and how it helps bring people together. I don't think the people who do it see it as anything remotely resembling cruelty and indeed I believe many/most of them have pets who they love and take care of.

I also can see why this is so emotive for people who have not been brought up with hunting as part and parcel of their regular existence or exposed to people who are involved in it. It is harder to be judgemental when your relatives or freinds are involved and you'know' they are not 'bad people'!

This is a classic clash between 'cultures' in a manner of speaking. Hence I think opinions will always be strongly divided and eagerly debated.

My personal opinion on it mirrors what Elizabeth said :

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]At the end of the day, regardless of the type or class of people involved, dispatching of animals / pests humanely will never sit right with me when it's associated with a sport or social event or culural activity. It should be based solely on what is the most efficient / safest / quickest and nothing else. No fun should be taken in it. This seems wrong to me. It's a job to be done well and that is it.[/quote]

I think the real problem is what is to be done with the hounds and what can be provided as a social outlet and a (suitable) social and economic activity to replace the hunt. I doubt hounds chasing a smelly rag satisifes the 'huntspeople'.

I also agree re the law. At the end of the day we live in a democracy. The law is a recent one supported by the majority of the people. This support is ongoing. It is a shame for the people who are involved in the hunt and for whom it is so important but the bottom line is the majority of the country believes this to be a cruel activity as does parliament. It should not raise eyebrows when the RSPCA then prosecute people for being cruel to animals. Thank heavens for them - so many countries are without such organisations to protect animal rights. Sometimes I think people do not realise how lucky they are to live here !

As for good use of their funds- they have a LOT of money. This was not a major expenditure for them. In addition while I agree more dogs+cats could have been helped wrt treatment costs and so on, if their prosecutions bring about a change in the 'culture 'of what the majority of the populace considers to be organised countrywide animal cruelty then surely that is a good use of funds.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

james herriot lied — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:23:57 GMT

ps. And I'm still waiting on an explanation of why you consider me to be prejudiced, David.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

james herriot lied — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:21:29 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Let's make this very simple: can you, David, actually come up with an objective argument in support of your assertion that hunting is the preserve of 'toffs'? Can you demonstrate that in rural areas, the various hunts DON'T fulfil an important social function? Would you like me to detail what one of our local hunts did during Foot and Mouth?[/quote]

1. No. But then neither can you in the reverse. Just my experience; anecdote vs anecdote if you like.

2. I'm sure they do. Never said anything different. As I see it, its not an excuse for animal cruelty though. I'm sure bullfighting is a good day out too if you're that way inclined. Suppose its just a case of ethical yardsticking - I'm more of the animal protection persuasion regardless of some unquantifiable 'social good'.

3. If you like. It will be anecdotal though.

[/quote]

Smashing.

1. Yes. Yes I can demonstrate that our local hunts aren't populated by toffs, unless your definition of toff extends downwards to include tenant farmers. Our local hunts are overwhelmingly not supported, followed or run by 'toffs'. Farmers and farmers' wives make up a disproportionate number of the active members and of the committees - although one of the last Masters of one of the hunts was both farmer and local magistrate, so make of that what you will. The supporters and followers are just locals, really. I have to concede a fairly major point here, though - many of the participants are horsey people, what with having horses and all. Are they toffs?

2. With respect to social function, what you actually said was, 'to say that hunt kennels are somehow a bedrock of rural economy and a social hub is poppycock'. I've already asked you why you inserted the phrase about being a bedrock of the rural economy, and I see you gave your source later in your answer - I too believe that the CA has come out with some choice tripe over the issue (as did much of the anti-hunting lobby); as to the latter portion of your statement, I'm honestly struggling to see why you think I 'have selectively read [your] posts'.

So are you conceding that these bodies are social hubs or not? Excuse my confusion.

3. Fine. Of course describing the activities of the local hunts is anecdotal: how could it be otherwise? I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I could promise that I'm telling the truth, though - or is this what we're arguing over? I feel that may be a blind alley at the end of the day in any case.

[quote user="David Mills"]

- In my experience and from things I've read most hunts are funded by wealthy landowners: gentry, toffs, call them what you like, these are the people I mean. There are exceptions, I'm sure..... There are non-wealhty individuals who are involved in the running of the hunt, in fact probably the majority of people who contribute to the hunt logistically are not wealthy. But the sport, in its practice, is the preserve of wealthy:

[/quote]

Disagree, for reasons stated above. It simply doesn't hold water for my local area, or indeed any other areas where I've worked. I did, as a child, sit on a kitchen chair of a local farmer (milking herd: 45 cows) - whose wife was the most god-awful snob, to be told that Prince Charles had once sat on it when he'd visited the local hunt. Does that count? I absolutely agree that it probably used to be as you describe, but that's at least forty years ago, if not more. Those days, like Downton Abbey, are hardly within living memory now.

[quote user="David Mills"]

Now there's nothing inherently wrong with wealthy landowners; but when they show arrogant disregard for the law, and that involves animal cruelty, then I will be filled with spitting disgust for those individuals.

[/quote]

Ah, and it was going so well. Then this. What you're essentially saying is that if these people did something which disgusts you, then you'd be, erm, disgusted. But what you're not doing is providing any evidence that they are doing such things. But I know what you mean, I feel the same way about bookish librarians. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with bookish librarians; but when they show arrogant disregard for the law, and that involves kiddy fiddling, then I will be filled with spitting disgust for those individuals.

Spoonfeed me all you like, mate. Much of your retorts centre on accusations of bringing the debate into the gutter and misunderstanding / misquoting you. You gave me an example, and I think we've covered it; I'm happy to discuss more. I won't join the dots, if that's OK, as I feel it's incumbent on you to explain yourself, not on me to interpret your posts in a way which is flattering to you.

And again: I don't support fox hunting either. That's not really what I'm arguing here, but it's the most significant thing we agree on.

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:28:14 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Oh, you'll have to do more than this to offend me, honey.[/quote]

Oh, David.

(please can we keep that one Arlo?)

[quote user="David Mills"]- I think hunting is barbarically cruel [my edit] No-one on here has come close to mounting a defence of fox hunting as a humane method of killing.[/quote]

The kill is quick. There is a chase involved beforehand - that all the hounds and horses are doing too. Is the chase bit cruel - because the hounds and horses love that bit. Foxes are dogs too. Is it cruel when a fox slaughters all my ducks by 'ripping their throats out'? How can it be so one way and not the other? If the fox killed what it needed to eat that would be necessity, but the mass slaughter is for fun.

[quote user="David Mills"]I hope to see more prosecutions brought in the future.[/quote]

I doubt the RSPCA can afford to bring cases against the other ~190 hunts that remain active, it would bankrupt them. What you and I consider good use of charity money differ markedly. The money should be spent to achive the greatest good, prosecuting these people does not do that.

[quote user="David Mills"]- In my experience and from things I've read most hunts are funded by wealthy landowners: gentry, toffs, call them what you like, these are the people I mean.[/quote]

Your 'experience' seems to be similar to the general public's media-derived perception of hunting rather than those who have experienced it - because it is not like that. Bit like the public think farmers are thick, and vets rich.

[quote user="David Mills"]But the sport, in its practice, is the preserve of wealthy[/quote]

NO IT IS NOT.

[quote user="David Mills"]to say otherwise is a bit like saying the Ritz is an establishment of the common man[/quote]

You can follow the hunt on foot. Anyone is welcome. Turn up in what you are wearing. If you turned up at the Ritz in your waterproofs after morning milking I suspect you would not be very welcome, however wealthy you were. You don't need money to hunt, you do for the Ritz. Misguided example.

[quote user="David Mills"]I've been on hunts years ago,[/quote]

From the crap you are spouting they must have been for your car keys or Easter eggs.............

Re: " I just hought I would see how it went for a few days"

David Mills — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:58:47 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

I've heard this argument from you before, David.

[/quote]

That's because your posts follow a particulat predictable pattern:

Argument/Opinion A is crap (no justification);

I think Argument/Opinion B is thus. Anecdote. Patronising comment about posters behaviour generally. Challenge for evidence from a position of anecdote/experience.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Your ability to take offence is noted. Again[/quote]

Oh, you'll have to do more than this to offend me, honey.

1. No. But then neither can you in the reverse. Just my experience; anecdote vs anecdote if you like.

3. If you like. It will be anecdotal though.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Can you point out where I've misunderstood anything which you've written? I would hate to think that you might have been misquoted in anything I may have posted and would be more than willing to offer an apology where you can show this to be the case. Can you explain why you feel me to be prejudiced?[/quote]

I'm not spoonfeeding you. I've been on hunts years ago, and worked in areas where hunts have been big deals. I'm sure you can join the dots from there. Never said misquoted; its just clear you have selectively read my posts.

Just to be clear:

- I think hunting is barbarically cruel, and that fact alone outweighs any possible benefits, which, to the detriment of reasoned debate have been hijacked, distorted, spun by groups such as CA. No-one on here has come close to mounting a defence of fox hunting as a humane method of killing.

- I think the RSPCA were right to prosecute the hunt they did; subsequently media organisations, the district judge, Lords, and the hunters themselves have behaved disgracefully, underhand and with complete disregard for the law or the democratic will of the country. I hope to see more prosecutions brought in the future.

- In my experience and from things I've read most hunts are funded by wealthy landowners: gentry, toffs, call them what you like, these are the people I mean. There are exceptions, I'm sure. The hunt is not a vital part of rural economy (CAspeak). There are non-wealhty individuals who are involved in the running of the hunt, in fact probably the majority of people who contribute to the hunt logistically are not wealthy. But the sport, in its practice, is the preserve of wealthy: to say otherwise is a bit like saying the Ritz is an establishment of the common man. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with wealthy landowners; but when they show arrogant disregard for the law, and that involves animal cruelty, then I will be filled with spitting disgust for those individuals. Same as if a group of chavs kicked a pigeon or a puppy to death outside our hospital, say.