dune

Is that why you're not just Mikey, but Super Mikey?

Out of interest do you eat dairy products and do you wear leather shoes?

It's good to see some Labour MP's aren't ignorant class warriors. I have long been a fan of Kate Hoey. To seek to improve the welfare of wildlife is right, but to target one method of control on the basis of either prejudice or ignorance and at the same time ignore the possible detrimental consequences is not only deplorable, but also doomed to disaster. That is what has happened to the Hunting Act. It began with pre-conceived ideas about hunting that were already held by Labour MPs. Add in an unwillingness to properly examine the process of hunting and to disregard scientific research that did not support a ban, and we can see a pattern forming. Then there comes the difficulty of drafting the Hunting Bill. This was not as easy as might have been thought, given that it is the hound that hunts rather than the human. Exemptions had to be included supposedly allowing "pest control" while cleansing the hunting process of any "killing for fun". Why pest control is somehow better for the quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic. Under the Hunting Act, terriers can be used on a fox underground to protect birds that are to be shot and yet exactly the same process cannot be used to protect a farmer's livestock or to save a rare ground nesting bird. Dogs are permitted to kill a rabbit, but not a hare. Dogs are permitted to kill a rat, but not a mouse. No wonder Defra officials, shortly after the law came into force, changed their minds four times when trying to clarify a particular use of dogs and now state that it all comes down to intention – a word that does not appear in the Hunting Act. So our police officers have to be mind readers, too! Yorkshire has more hunts than any other county with 22 packs of fox hounds as well as beagles, harriers and mink hounds. Yet not a single person connected to a hunt in Yorkshire has been convicted of, or even charged with, a Hunting Act offence – despite countless allegations from animal rights activists. The vast majority of people who have been convicted under the Hunting Act could probably have been prosecuted under previously existing laws. As one judge commented: "The law is far from simple to interpret or to apply; it seems to us that any given set of facts may be susceptible to differing interpretations." Despite the many hours of film footage passed to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service by the self-appointed "monitors" who follow hunts and see illegal hunting at every corner, only three prosecutions of hunt officials have been successful. The one means of control that is selective and non-wounding has been outlawed. A process that emulates the way in which wolves hunt and targets the old, weak, ailing and injured animals has been banned. The only method that utilises a "search and dispatch" facility is regarded as unacceptable by the British government. So what has happened to the welfare of the quarry species under the Hunting Act? Odd that not one penny has been spent by those determined to ban hunting to ascertain exactly what the welfare benefits are for our wildlife. The limited evidence that is available indicates no saving of lives and an increase in suffering just as the scientific evidence presented before the Act said wildlife welfare would deteriorate. That is why all genuine supporters of our wildlife, both hunter and non-hunter alike, should demand the immediate repeal of this bad law by whichever party wins the General Election. It is a huge regret to me, as a Labour MP, that in the last 12 years the Government could not have shown as much energy and commitment on rural affordable housing, local services and rural business as they did on hunting. Perhaps, if they had done so, the countryside would be a wealthier, healthier and happier place. http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/hunting-campaigns/hunting-views/kate-hoey-mp-on-why-repeal-is-needed/

Not at all. I like eating meat, fish and poultry because it tastes nice. Just enjoyed a lovely piece of gammon. I'm now going to top up my feeders with niger seeds, sunflower cornels, and nuts. You don't understand the countryside. Stick to your city and leave the countryside to the people that live there.

I won't touch it personally, bahamas oil is where i'd invest.

VOD still offering a very attractive entry price... Desire looks to have bottomed out at 40p on it's yo yo tack...

That sounds pretty much like Communism - the philosophy of your typical UAF comrade.

That's nonsense. There's no pleasure in it, it just has to be done. A quick tap on the head and the trout is dead and it's lived a happy life swimming around doing fishy things up to that point.

The kill isn't the pleasureable part of hunting, the chase and being out in the open countryside is the pleasureable part. It's the same with fly fishing, the fight and being in a lovely environment is the pleasureable part, not hitting the trout over the head.

Mikey and Andy both say lefties are more cleverer so it must be true.

Panic is setting in... Quick time to spam the thread... I hope no-one see's where dune has turned the table on me...

Deppo getting rattled again is better still.

Deppo getting rattled is better.

3. Because it happened. Why the need to complicate everything?

Fair point. Feel free to revert back to your old style.

I don't need docuented academic research to prove historical fact. The Industrial revolution was necesitated and fueled by the wars with the French and was able to happen because of right wingers. The Empire was also built by right wingers. Like it or not both the industrial revolution and Britains global superiority are the foundations for the prosperous society we live in today.

No sarcasm. No Hilarity. That's completely out of character.

Dr Who have you ever had problem tennants and if a self letting landlord did would it have been preferable to have employed a lettings agency?

If you haven't got the mental capacity to debate a given thread that is your problem.

I've not thrown a wobbly at all. I remember watching Whickers world once and Alan Whicker said the golden rule of foreign travel is never to attempt to speak the natives language because it puts you at an immediate disadvantage. If I had lowered myself to your level then quite clearly you'd have had the advantage, but I quite evidently rattled you (which you'll probably deny) into attemping to raise your level to mine. You completely changed your posting style and thus it was you that threw the wobbly and acted out of character (possibly the real you?) and not me.

Maybe I was wrong to complain because you have actually, albeit unintentionally, done my view point a big favour because you've clearly demonstrated that behind the facade of superiority, there is little substance - be that historical facts or historical precedents - to support the idea that the left wing brain is superior. Quite the opposite. And as for me throwing a wobbly my posting style has remained consistent, wheras you have suddenly become a completely different person.

Of course they enjoy your posts, because you are very good at mocking different views with your trademark hilarity and mirth laced with lashings of sarcasm. When you (and those with similar views) find yourself (themselves) in a tightspot and run out of a rational argument it's always good to have you on hand.

Well i apologise for that. It would have been more accurate to have described left wingers as less intelligent than right wingers. I have already shown that it was right wingers that built Britain and the Western World in to the prosperous civilisation we all live in today, so quite clearly right wingers are very smart, and one only has to look at Britains finances in 1979 and 2010 to see that left wingers reversed the process.

The thing is you don't. The comment above is just a continuation of your sillyness. Some people quite clearly find you amusing, and on the odd ocasion you are, but generally speaking you never give an argument or an opinion that isn't sarcastic. Your quoted post perfectly illustrates this.

You know what i'm talking about. There are two sides to most arguments, and in the case of this thread it couldn't be more devicive, but that doesn't mean we can't have a sensible debate. We could of course all act like 5 year olds and converse on your rib tickling level, but this is the lounge.