80 per cent support hunting ban, poll finds

Daily Echo: The New Forest Hounds in action The New Forest Hounds in action

EIGHT out of ten people believe foxhunting should remain illegal, an animal welfare charity has claimed on the biggest day in the hunting calendar.

Thousands of people are expected to attend around 250 traditional Boxing Day Meets across the country today, including in Hampshire, as supporters continue their push for a new vote on the ban.

One of the biggest will take place when the New Forest Hounds stage their annual Boxing Day hunt, starting at the Balmer Lawn Hotel near Brockenhurst this morning.

The poll, carried out by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, found 80 per cent of the public want to keep the law, with support equally strong in both rural and urban areas.

It comes as supporters of foxhunting are pushing for a new vote on the ban, which had been promised by the coalition Government following the 2010 general election.

In October Prime Minister David Cameron said he has ''sympathy'' with calls for the rules on foxhunting to be loosened.

But Joe Duckworth, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said a new vote would be ''political suicide''. He said: ''Hunting is a sickeningly cruel blood sport, which, like us, the majority of the British public do not want brought back.

''Voting for repeal would be political suicide. We need to move forward as a nation, not backwards on matters of animal welfare, which is why we recently launched our national 'No Joke' online and cinema campaign to remind people of the sheer horror and animal cruelty hiding behind the 'traditional spectacle'.''

MPs and campaigners are pushing the Government to scrap the ban on using more than two dogs to flush out foxes so they can be shot.

Farmers say attacks on lambs have increased, and argue that limited pest control measures permitted under the 2004 Hunting Act are not working.

The poll questioned 1,983 adults face-to-face in Great Britain between November 1 and 7.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:33am Thu 26 Dec 13

nicole warren says...

I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.
I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty. nicole warren

10:36am Thu 26 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

nicole warren wrote:
I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.
That's disturbing, but begs more questions. WHy would they try and gain access to your vehicle? What were you doing that would make them do this? It hasn't happened to any other vehicles. Were you blocking the paths of horseriders? How do you know who they were, and what indication do you have of their afiliation with the hunt and the hunt members? The vast majority of hunts do not involve any harm to any fox and continue as social events for horseriders - which in thruth was always the case anyway.
[quote][p][bold]nicole warren[/bold] wrote: I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.[/p][/quote]That's disturbing, but begs more questions. WHy would they try and gain access to your vehicle? What were you doing that would make them do this? It hasn't happened to any other vehicles. Were you blocking the paths of horseriders? How do you know who they were, and what indication do you have of their afiliation with the hunt and the hunt members? The vast majority of hunts do not involve any harm to any fox and continue as social events for horseriders - which in thruth was always the case anyway. The Wickham Man

11:01am Thu 26 Dec 13

elvisimo says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
nicole warren wrote:
I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.
That's disturbing, but begs more questions. WHy would they try and gain access to your vehicle? What were you doing that would make them do this? It hasn't happened to any other vehicles. Were you blocking the paths of horseriders? How do you know who they were, and what indication do you have of their afiliation with the hunt and the hunt members? The vast majority of hunts do not involve any harm to any fox and continue as social events for horseriders - which in thruth was always the case anyway.
Agreed. The whole hunting ban was a ridiculous waste of parliamentary time to appease people who had no actual idea on what they were being outraged about.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nicole warren[/bold] wrote: I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.[/p][/quote]That's disturbing, but begs more questions. WHy would they try and gain access to your vehicle? What were you doing that would make them do this? It hasn't happened to any other vehicles. Were you blocking the paths of horseriders? How do you know who they were, and what indication do you have of their afiliation with the hunt and the hunt members? The vast majority of hunts do not involve any harm to any fox and continue as social events for horseriders - which in thruth was always the case anyway.[/p][/quote]Agreed. The whole hunting ban was a ridiculous waste of parliamentary time to appease people who had no actual idea on what they were being outraged about. elvisimo

11:13am Thu 26 Dec 13

roofspace says...

A few years ago a friend of mine was driving through the forest on a "b" road and stopped his vehicle as a huntswoman was riding in the opposite direction.
As she passed she said "good morning"
My friend replied "not if you're a fox"
They both went their separate ways only for my friend a few minutes later to be pulled over by a police car with the blue light flashing, the occupants of which proceeded to give him a grilling with their questions as though they were guilty of some heinous crime but couldn't be proven. Asked why they had been stopped they were told the huntswoman had dialled 999 to report people interfering with the hunt.
So if you need an instant police response at any time just tell them you have been accosted by out-of-towners in the forest.
A few years ago a friend of mine was driving through the forest on a "b" road and stopped his vehicle as a huntswoman was riding in the opposite direction. As she passed she said "good morning" My friend replied "not if you're a fox" They both went their separate ways only for my friend a few minutes later to be pulled over by a police car with the blue light flashing, the occupants of which proceeded to give him a grilling with their questions as though they were guilty of some heinous crime but couldn't be proven. Asked why they had been stopped they were told the huntswoman had dialled 999 to report people interfering with the hunt. So if you need an instant police response at any time just tell them you have been accosted by out-of-towners in the forest. roofspace

11:24am Thu 26 Dec 13

Linesman says...

elvisimo wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
nicole warren wrote:
I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.
That's disturbing, but begs more questions. WHy would they try and gain access to your vehicle? What were you doing that would make them do this? It hasn't happened to any other vehicles. Were you blocking the paths of horseriders? How do you know who they were, and what indication do you have of their afiliation with the hunt and the hunt members? The vast majority of hunts do not involve any harm to any fox and continue as social events for horseriders - which in thruth was always the case anyway.
Agreed. The whole hunting ban was a ridiculous waste of parliamentary time to appease people who had no actual idea on what they were being outraged about.
The hunting ban reflected the wishes of the vast majority of the population, so therefore it was not a waste of parliamentary time.

To appease people who had no actual idea on what they were being outraged about?

You must be joking!

These people were outraged that in the 21st century, there were still people who considered that hounds tearing another animal to pieces was SPORT.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nicole warren[/bold] wrote: I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.[/p][/quote]That's disturbing, but begs more questions. WHy would they try and gain access to your vehicle? What were you doing that would make them do this? It hasn't happened to any other vehicles. Were you blocking the paths of horseriders? How do you know who they were, and what indication do you have of their afiliation with the hunt and the hunt members? The vast majority of hunts do not involve any harm to any fox and continue as social events for horseriders - which in thruth was always the case anyway.[/p][/quote]Agreed. The whole hunting ban was a ridiculous waste of parliamentary time to appease people who had no actual idea on what they were being outraged about.[/p][/quote]The hunting ban reflected the wishes of the vast majority of the population, so therefore it was not a waste of parliamentary time. To appease people who had no actual idea on what they were being outraged about? You must be joking! These people were outraged that in the 21st century, there were still people who considered that hounds tearing another animal to pieces was SPORT. Linesman

11:32am Thu 26 Dec 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

There should be a law against hounding poor old Danny, may not be a good left back but he does his best.
There should be a law against hounding poor old Danny, may not be a good left back but he does his best. OSPREYSAINT

12:14pm Thu 26 Dec 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

nicole warren wrote:
I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.
Any chance of hearing the other sides story? You explanation sounds terrifying, if true. Would a group of Hunt supporters really do this to you, your elderly passenger and your poor Land Rover?
[quote][p][bold]nicole warren[/bold] wrote: I drove a landrover through the Cattistock hunt last week with an elderly female passenger. Hunt supporters on quad bikes tried to gain entry to our vehicle, smashed a rear light and broke our wing mirror. It was terrifying. Hunting is nothing but a front for violence and cruelty.[/p][/quote]Any chance of hearing the other sides story? You explanation sounds terrifying, if true. Would a group of Hunt supporters really do this to you, your elderly passenger and your poor Land Rover? Sir Ad E Noid

1:38pm Thu 26 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

roofspace wrote:
A few years ago a friend of mine was driving through the forest on a "b" road and stopped his vehicle as a huntswoman was riding in the opposite direction.
As she passed she said "good morning"
My friend replied "not if you're a fox"
They both went their separate ways only for my friend a few minutes later to be pulled over by a police car with the blue light flashing, the occupants of which proceeded to give him a grilling with their questions as though they were guilty of some heinous crime but couldn't be proven. Asked why they had been stopped they were told the huntswoman had dialled 999 to report people interfering with the hunt.
So if you need an instant police response at any time just tell them you have been accosted by out-of-towners in the forest.
THat's a ridiculous and incomplete anecdote. Firstly, When passing a horserider in the opposite direction who has time for a conversational exchange unless the driver made the point of stopping and saying something provocative and unpleasant? Try it. A wave and a nod at best. Secondly with "sabs" around hell bent on trouble how can you assume that a) it was the same woman hunter and b) that the police were looking for your "friend" and not some other car? (it's always someone else these things happe to isn't it). People who ride horses tend to be practical people who don't bear the kind of silly immature grudges as described - if she had something to say she would have said it - to your "friend's" face. .
[quote][p][bold]roofspace[/bold] wrote: A few years ago a friend of mine was driving through the forest on a "b" road and stopped his vehicle as a huntswoman was riding in the opposite direction. As she passed she said "good morning" My friend replied "not if you're a fox" They both went their separate ways only for my friend a few minutes later to be pulled over by a police car with the blue light flashing, the occupants of which proceeded to give him a grilling with their questions as though they were guilty of some heinous crime but couldn't be proven. Asked why they had been stopped they were told the huntswoman had dialled 999 to report people interfering with the hunt. So if you need an instant police response at any time just tell them you have been accosted by out-of-towners in the forest.[/p][/quote]THat's a ridiculous and incomplete anecdote. Firstly, When passing a horserider in the opposite direction who has time for a conversational exchange unless the driver made the point of stopping and saying something provocative and unpleasant? Try it. A wave and a nod at best. Secondly with "sabs" around hell bent on trouble how can you assume that a) it was the same woman hunter and b) that the police were looking for your "friend" and not some other car? (it's always someone else these things happe to isn't it). People who ride horses tend to be practical people who don't bear the kind of silly immature grudges as described - if she had something to say she would have said it - to your "friend's" face. . The Wickham Man

2:13pm Thu 26 Dec 13

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
roofspace wrote:
A few years ago a friend of mine was driving through the forest on a "b" road and stopped his vehicle as a huntswoman was riding in the opposite direction.
As she passed she said "good morning"
My friend replied "not if you're a fox"
They both went their separate ways only for my friend a few minutes later to be pulled over by a police car with the blue light flashing, the occupants of which proceeded to give him a grilling with their questions as though they were guilty of some heinous crime but couldn't be proven. Asked why they had been stopped they were told the huntswoman had dialled 999 to report people interfering with the hunt.
So if you need an instant police response at any time just tell them you have been accosted by out-of-towners in the forest.
THat's a ridiculous and incomplete anecdote. Firstly, When passing a horserider in the opposite direction who has time for a conversational exchange unless the driver made the point of stopping and saying something provocative and unpleasant? Try it. A wave and a nod at best. Secondly with "sabs" around hell bent on trouble how can you assume that a) it was the same woman hunter and b) that the police were looking for your "friend" and not some other car? (it's always someone else these things happe to isn't it). People who ride horses tend to be practical people who don't bear the kind of silly immature grudges as described - if she had something to say she would have said it - to your "friend's" face. .
window maybe of been open, the hunt woman spoke first saying good morning could be another way of saying thank you for pulling over.

And yes it do happen a lot around Fox and Hound Hunts, getting stop by the hunts stewards and/or police, its very common
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roofspace[/bold] wrote: A few years ago a friend of mine was driving through the forest on a "b" road and stopped his vehicle as a huntswoman was riding in the opposite direction. As she passed she said "good morning" My friend replied "not if you're a fox" They both went their separate ways only for my friend a few minutes later to be pulled over by a police car with the blue light flashing, the occupants of which proceeded to give him a grilling with their questions as though they were guilty of some heinous crime but couldn't be proven. Asked why they had been stopped they were told the huntswoman had dialled 999 to report people interfering with the hunt. So if you need an instant police response at any time just tell them you have been accosted by out-of-towners in the forest.[/p][/quote]THat's a ridiculous and incomplete anecdote. Firstly, When passing a horserider in the opposite direction who has time for a conversational exchange unless the driver made the point of stopping and saying something provocative and unpleasant? Try it. A wave and a nod at best. Secondly with "sabs" around hell bent on trouble how can you assume that a) it was the same woman hunter and b) that the police were looking for your "friend" and not some other car? (it's always someone else these things happe to isn't it). People who ride horses tend to be practical people who don't bear the kind of silly immature grudges as described - if she had something to say she would have said it - to your "friend's" face. .[/p][/quote]window maybe of been open, the hunt woman spoke first saying good morning could be another way of saying thank you for pulling over. And yes it do happen a lot around Fox and Hound Hunts, getting stop by the hunts stewards and/or police, its very common southy

3:58pm Thu 26 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country. geoff51

5:19pm Thu 26 Dec 13

George4th says...

If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this! George4th

5:40pm Thu 26 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

George4th wrote:
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
What the blazes has that got to do with the foxhunting debate? Stay on topic.
For your information I am a caring person who had 2 handicapped children now deceased. Also for your information I am the owner of 2 dogs and am proud to care for them too, and your comment that most people don't want or like dogs is not supported by the over 7 million dog owners in the UK
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this![/p][/quote]What the blazes has that got to do with the foxhunting debate? Stay on topic. For your information I am a caring person who had 2 handicapped children now deceased. Also for your information I am the owner of 2 dogs and am proud to care for them too, and your comment that most people don't want or like dogs is not supported by the over 7 million dog owners in the UK geoff51

6:03pm Thu 26 Dec 13

George4th says...

geoff51 wrote:
George4th wrote:
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
What the blazes has that got to do with the foxhunting debate? Stay on topic.
For your information I am a caring person who had 2 handicapped children now deceased. Also for your information I am the owner of 2 dogs and am proud to care for them too, and your comment that most people don't want or like dogs is not supported by the over 7 million dog owners in the UK
I'm truly sorry for your loss.

As for 7 million dog owners, you are saying that 1 in 9 own a dog - that translates to only 11.1% of the population therefore 88.9% have no say about the dogs that people own!
Most (not the thoroughly responsible ones) dog owners ignore the needs, wishes, feelings and vulnerabilities of non-dog owners!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this![/p][/quote]What the blazes has that got to do with the foxhunting debate? Stay on topic. For your information I am a caring person who had 2 handicapped children now deceased. Also for your information I am the owner of 2 dogs and am proud to care for them too, and your comment that most people don't want or like dogs is not supported by the over 7 million dog owners in the UK[/p][/quote]I'm truly sorry for your loss. As for 7 million dog owners, you are saying that 1 in 9 own a dog - that translates to only 11.1% of the population therefore 88.9% have no say about the dogs that people own! Most (not the thoroughly responsible ones) dog owners ignore the needs, wishes, feelings and vulnerabilities of non-dog owners! George4th

6:21pm Thu 26 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

Having a dog makes you a far more calm rounded person they are great stress relievers and unlike many people give love unconditionally.
Try it, I talk to more strangers, make more friends with dog owners, it makes you more sociable than without a dog.
Having a dog makes you a far more calm rounded person they are great stress relievers and unlike many people give love unconditionally. Try it, I talk to more strangers, make more friends with dog owners, it makes you more sociable than without a dog. geoff51

7:04pm Thu 26 Dec 13

St Denys I.T.A says...

George4th wrote:
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too .
And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows:
"About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable".
Oscar Wilde
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this![/p][/quote]If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too . And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows: "About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". Oscar Wilde St Denys I.T.A

7:29pm Thu 26 Dec 13

freefinker says...

St Denys I.T.A wrote:
George4th wrote:
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too .
And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows:
"About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable".
Oscar Wilde
.. one horse, two ar$eholes also sums up hunting quite accurately.
[quote][p][bold]St Denys I.T.A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this![/p][/quote]If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too . And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows: "About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". Oscar Wilde[/p][/quote].. one horse, two ar$eholes also sums up hunting quite accurately. freefinker

7:41pm Thu 26 Dec 13

Inform Al says...

geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014 Inform Al

7:48pm Thu 26 Dec 13

George4th says...

geoff51 wrote:
Having a dog makes you a far more calm rounded person they are great stress relievers and unlike many people give love unconditionally.
Try it, I talk to more strangers, make more friends with dog owners, it makes you more sociable than without a dog.
You don't have to have a dog to be a calmer person! Besides, have you heard some dog owners shouting at their dogs?! I accept that it works for you as an individual but it doesn't mean that everyone you meet likes dogs!(other than dog owners!)

And just for the record, I've had dogs! BUT, even though they were 100% harmless and child friendly, I always had the dog by the lead or collar BEFORE I allowed anyone, especially children, to touch the dog, and then only with an adults permission..........
.....
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: Having a dog makes you a far more calm rounded person they are great stress relievers and unlike many people give love unconditionally. Try it, I talk to more strangers, make more friends with dog owners, it makes you more sociable than without a dog.[/p][/quote]You don't have to have a dog to be a calmer person! Besides, have you heard some dog owners shouting at their dogs?! I accept that it works for you as an individual but it doesn't mean that everyone you meet likes dogs!(other than dog owners!) And just for the record, I've had dogs! BUT, even though they were 100% harmless and child friendly, I always had the dog by the lead or collar BEFORE I allowed anyone, especially children, to touch the dog, and then only with an adults permission.......... ..... George4th

8:19pm Thu 26 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

freefinker wrote:
St Denys I.T.A wrote:
George4th wrote:
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too .
And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows:
"About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable".
Oscar Wilde
.. one horse, two ar$eholes also sums up hunting quite accurately.
That's no way to describe yourself you have only one ar$hole and usually talk out of it
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Denys I.T.A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this![/p][/quote]If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too . And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows: "About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". Oscar Wilde[/p][/quote].. one horse, two ar$eholes also sums up hunting quite accurately.[/p][/quote]That's no way to describe yourself you have only one ar$hole and usually talk out of it geoff51

8:23pm Thu 26 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
How does the saying go? There are lies, **** lies and statistics?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014[/p][/quote]How does the saying go? There are lies, **** lies and statistics? geoff51

8:04am Fri 27 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

St Denys I.T.A wrote:
George4th wrote:
If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes.

We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this!
If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too .
And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows:
"About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable".
Oscar Wilde
No they aren't. The opposite is true. People who become obsessed with animals are usually extremely misanthropic and have turned to animals having turned their backs on people.Most of the weirdos who keep foxes as pets wouldn't cross the road to help another human - you only have to read their posts. Even these so called "Animal Rights" campaigners are motivated by hatred, not love. THe reason Hunt saboteurs still exists after the ban is that they were always more interested in baiting the hunters than saving the fox.
[quote][p][bold]St Denys I.T.A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: If only the supporters of foxes would firstly support the human sick, disabled, elderly, infirm and children who need a home (temporary or permanent), I might start to consider supporting animal causes. We live in a society where, for example, the majority of dog owners have no consideration for non-dog owners! Most people in this country don't want a dog or like dogs or want anything to do with them! Many people are scared of dogs, many have allergies exacerbated by dogs etc etc but the dog owners ignore this![/p][/quote]If a person is into animal rights then they are much more likely to be into human rights too . And as for the fox hunting issue - best summed up as follows: "About foxhunting: The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". Oscar Wilde[/p][/quote]No they aren't. The opposite is true. People who become obsessed with animals are usually extremely misanthropic and have turned to animals having turned their backs on people.Most of the weirdos who keep foxes as pets wouldn't cross the road to help another human - you only have to read their posts. Even these so called "Animal Rights" campaigners are motivated by hatred, not love. THe reason Hunt saboteurs still exists after the ban is that they were always more interested in baiting the hunters than saving the fox. The Wickham Man

8:10am Fri 27 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014[/p][/quote]THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess. The Wickham Man

10:22am Fri 27 Dec 13

andysaints007 says...

The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.
The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel. andysaints007

10:46am Fri 27 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.
Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.[/p][/quote]Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws. The Wickham Man

12:03pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Inform Al says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.
Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014[/p][/quote]THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.[/p][/quote]Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops. Inform Al

1:12pm Fri 27 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.
Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.
God you really are a fool aren't you - destroying your own argument in a wild clumsy attempt to make some kind of crass class hate smear. There are so many obvious reasons why you don't get a typical cross section in a street vox pop I am both surprised and amused that someone who claims to be highly educated (you are fooling nobody btw) claims he cannot think of any of them. Those in permanent employment will be hugely comparatively under-represented, as will those who work in rural areas (who are most affected and also most ignored funnily enough). If a poll for an ice rink was conducted at the Romsey Country show, or outside a village pub and unsurprisingly rejected by pollsters who preferred that the money was spent on country buses the very same townies on here content to accept this ludicrous form of "democracy" would suddenly be up in arms at the injustice of it. And watching you in action is like watching a drunk try and start a fight, swinging wildly and randomly at nothing in particular before falling heavily on his backside.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014[/p][/quote]THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.[/p][/quote]Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.[/p][/quote]God you really are a fool aren't you - destroying your own argument in a wild clumsy attempt to make some kind of crass class hate smear. There are so many obvious reasons why you don't get a typical cross section in a street vox pop I am both surprised and amused that someone who claims to be highly educated (you are fooling nobody btw) claims he cannot think of any of them. Those in permanent employment will be hugely comparatively under-represented, as will those who work in rural areas (who are most affected and also most ignored funnily enough). If a poll for an ice rink was conducted at the Romsey Country show, or outside a village pub and unsurprisingly rejected by pollsters who preferred that the money was spent on country buses the very same townies on here content to accept this ludicrous form of "democracy" would suddenly be up in arms at the injustice of it. And watching you in action is like watching a drunk try and start a fight, swinging wildly and randomly at nothing in particular before falling heavily on his backside. The Wickham Man

3:30pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Inform Al says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.
Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.
God you really are a fool aren't you - destroying your own argument in a wild clumsy attempt to make some kind of crass class hate smear. There are so many obvious reasons why you don't get a typical cross section in a street vox pop I am both surprised and amused that someone who claims to be highly educated (you are fooling nobody btw) claims he cannot think of any of them. Those in permanent employment will be hugely comparatively under-represented, as will those who work in rural areas (who are most affected and also most ignored funnily enough). If a poll for an ice rink was conducted at the Romsey Country show, or outside a village pub and unsurprisingly rejected by pollsters who preferred that the money was spent on country buses the very same townies on here content to accept this ludicrous form of "democracy" would suddenly be up in arms at the injustice of it. And watching you in action is like watching a drunk try and start a fight, swinging wildly and randomly at nothing in particular before falling heavily on his backside.
Still serving cr4p then. Obviously you are one of the less than 20% that would like to follow the cretins on horse, as you would like to see the poll taken in their areas that the majority will clearly not be. See you are still telling lies about people you do not know and wouldn't have the guts to do so face to face
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014[/p][/quote]THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.[/p][/quote]Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.[/p][/quote]God you really are a fool aren't you - destroying your own argument in a wild clumsy attempt to make some kind of crass class hate smear. There are so many obvious reasons why you don't get a typical cross section in a street vox pop I am both surprised and amused that someone who claims to be highly educated (you are fooling nobody btw) claims he cannot think of any of them. Those in permanent employment will be hugely comparatively under-represented, as will those who work in rural areas (who are most affected and also most ignored funnily enough). If a poll for an ice rink was conducted at the Romsey Country show, or outside a village pub and unsurprisingly rejected by pollsters who preferred that the money was spent on country buses the very same townies on here content to accept this ludicrous form of "democracy" would suddenly be up in arms at the injustice of it. And watching you in action is like watching a drunk try and start a fight, swinging wildly and randomly at nothing in particular before falling heavily on his backside.[/p][/quote]Still serving cr4p then. Obviously you are one of the less than 20% that would like to follow the cretins on horse, as you would like to see the poll taken in their areas that the majority will clearly not be. See you are still telling lies about people you do not know and wouldn't have the guts to do so face to face Inform Al

6:10pm Fri 27 Dec 13

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants.
Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots.
This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.
The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014
THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.
Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.
God you really are a fool aren't you - destroying your own argument in a wild clumsy attempt to make some kind of crass class hate smear. There are so many obvious reasons why you don't get a typical cross section in a street vox pop I am both surprised and amused that someone who claims to be highly educated (you are fooling nobody btw) claims he cannot think of any of them. Those in permanent employment will be hugely comparatively under-represented, as will those who work in rural areas (who are most affected and also most ignored funnily enough). If a poll for an ice rink was conducted at the Romsey Country show, or outside a village pub and unsurprisingly rejected by pollsters who preferred that the money was spent on country buses the very same townies on here content to accept this ludicrous form of "democracy" would suddenly be up in arms at the injustice of it. And watching you in action is like watching a drunk try and start a fight, swinging wildly and randomly at nothing in particular before falling heavily on his backside.
The most ignored people are those in the suburbs of a town or city, the rural areas are look after better than most people that live on the out skirts of a town or city
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: When you read that this poll was commissioned by the nutters at the RSPCA and LASC its not surprising that the outcome was in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune and expects to get the results it wants. Both of these organisations have been discredited by their attitudes to the law regarding Foxhunting and have wasted donations given to them in bringing spurious prosecutions against Hunts and Shoots. This law is an unworkable instrument created by the Labour party to appease the voters who have no concept of country ways and traditions and should be repealed to free up police and court time to deal with the important laws that are being flouted daily in this country.[/p][/quote]The poll was carried out by ipsos Mori so should be accurate. Perhaps Dodgy Dave should ask them to find out how many of us would like the EU referendum in early 2014[/p][/quote]THat means nothing. Have you ever known of any poll ever paid for by any organisation that didn't deliver the result it expected to see? If you carry out a street poll on foxhunting you aren't likely to bump into many ex hunters are you. Do you suppose the "poll" went round farms? Or even a farmers market? a Gymkhana? a country pub? No. If you want to base Government on simple polls of unaffected people there are thousands of things that we can "ban". You'd find a high street poll would ban plenty of things that you think are worth supporting. In fact the country would grind to a halt in a paralysis of mass Nimbyism. If you want to start using street polls as a substitute for Government be prepared for a distopian mess.[/p][/quote]Total rubbish. Street polls actually catch a fair representation of all of us. Not every horse riding Butlins entertainer is in a position to send his minions out to the shops.[/p][/quote]God you really are a fool aren't you - destroying your own argument in a wild clumsy attempt to make some kind of crass class hate smear. There are so many obvious reasons why you don't get a typical cross section in a street vox pop I am both surprised and amused that someone who claims to be highly educated (you are fooling nobody btw) claims he cannot think of any of them. Those in permanent employment will be hugely comparatively under-represented, as will those who work in rural areas (who are most affected and also most ignored funnily enough). If a poll for an ice rink was conducted at the Romsey Country show, or outside a village pub and unsurprisingly rejected by pollsters who preferred that the money was spent on country buses the very same townies on here content to accept this ludicrous form of "democracy" would suddenly be up in arms at the injustice of it. And watching you in action is like watching a drunk try and start a fight, swinging wildly and randomly at nothing in particular before falling heavily on his backside.[/p][/quote]The most ignored people are those in the suburbs of a town or city, the rural areas are look after better than most people that live on the out skirts of a town or city southy

6:15pm Fri 27 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

Ah good. I was hoping you'd trot out your favourite Cretin word. Pillock bingo is always fun when the unwitting dupe helps win the game for his owner, So let's see your post....ah yes so the poll was fine when it was in someone else's "area" yet you think it would be cheating if it was conducted anywhere where the result mightr not be so clear cut?....ok we'll just leave that brilliant piece of hypocrisy to fester shall we?
Ah good. I was hoping you'd trot out your favourite Cretin word. Pillock bingo is always fun when the unwitting dupe helps win the game for his owner, So let's see your post....ah yes so the poll was fine when it was in someone else's "area" yet you think it would be cheating if it was conducted anywhere where the result mightr not be so clear cut?....ok we'll just leave that brilliant piece of hypocrisy to fester shall we? The Wickham Man

6:25pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Inform Al says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Ah good. I was hoping you'd trot out your favourite Cretin word. Pillock bingo is always fun when the unwitting dupe helps win the game for his owner, So let's see your post....ah yes so the poll was fine when it was in someone else's "area" yet you think it would be cheating if it was conducted anywhere where the result mightr not be so clear cut?....ok we'll just leave that brilliant piece of hypocrisy to fester shall we?
I suppose you're upset because the poll didn't reach the far off planet you appear to live on. I must have responded to a previous post of yours to have used the word cretin. Anyway I do have a rule of never arguing with a fool, so bye bye, I do hope there is a cure available for you.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Ah good. I was hoping you'd trot out your favourite Cretin word. Pillock bingo is always fun when the unwitting dupe helps win the game for his owner, So let's see your post....ah yes so the poll was fine when it was in someone else's "area" yet you think it would be cheating if it was conducted anywhere where the result mightr not be so clear cut?....ok we'll just leave that brilliant piece of hypocrisy to fester shall we?[/p][/quote]I suppose you're upset because the poll didn't reach the far off planet you appear to live on. I must have responded to a previous post of yours to have used the word cretin. Anyway I do have a rule of never arguing with a fool, so bye bye, I do hope there is a cure available for you. Inform Al

10:23pm Fri 27 Dec 13

rightway says...

With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces.
I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces.
They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?
With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces. I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces. They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ? rightway

10:31pm Fri 27 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

rightway wrote:
With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces.
I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces.
They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?
The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled.
You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest.
Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces. I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces. They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled. You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest. Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer. geoff51

10:59pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Inform Al says...

geoff51 wrote:
rightway wrote:
With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces.
I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces.
They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?
The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled.
You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest.
Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.
Think you'll find the post was meant to be sardonic, obviously not appreciated by the Butlin's Horsey lot
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces. I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces. They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled. You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest. Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find the post was meant to be sardonic, obviously not appreciated by the Butlin's Horsey lot Inform Al

11:03pm Fri 27 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
rightway wrote:
With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces.
I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces.
They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?
The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled.
You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest.
Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.
Think you'll find the post was meant to be sardonic, obviously not appreciated by the Butlin's Horsey lot
More stupid than sardonic.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces. I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces. They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled. You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest. Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find the post was meant to be sardonic, obviously not appreciated by the Butlin's Horsey lot[/p][/quote]More stupid than sardonic. geoff51

11:18pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Inform Al says...

geoff51 wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
rightway wrote:
With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces.
I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces.
They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?
The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled.
You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest.
Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.
Think you'll find the post was meant to be sardonic, obviously not appreciated by the Butlin's Horsey lot
More stupid than sardonic.
Think that depends on whether your one of the 80&% or 20%. Personally I thought it was quite funny, but then I just used to shoot foxes that got too close to my poultry. I didn't need donkeys on horses charging all over my land, and would have shot their dogs if they'd tried.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: With foxes and stags of the menu, the solution is simple, as far as I'm aware no ban on the hunting of new forest ponies has been issued, so why not single out a pony chase it until it collapses from exhaustion then let the hounds tear it to pieces. I know there may be a few who would think this barbaric, but what’s the difference in letting dogs rip a pony a stag or a fox to pieces. They are all animals and its only for sport, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]The difference you numpty is that horses unlike foxes are not vermin that need to be culled. You demonstrate your total ignorance of the forest as all ponies belong to commoners who have the right to graze ponies on the forest. Go back to your social housing and watch your large screen TV and drink your beer.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find the post was meant to be sardonic, obviously not appreciated by the Butlin's Horsey lot[/p][/quote]More stupid than sardonic.[/p][/quote]Think that depends on whether your one of the 80&% or 20%. Personally I thought it was quite funny, but then I just used to shoot foxes that got too close to my poultry. I didn't need donkeys on horses charging all over my land, and would have shot their dogs if they'd tried. Inform Al

3:47am Sat 28 Dec 13

Poppy22 says...

The law was passed because the majority of the people in this country see hunting as "sport" as barbaric in this day and age - especially fox hunting with packs of hounds that tear apart a fox. We should not even be having the debate about whether the law will be repealed - why is it that a law that impacts mostly the wealthy seems to always be up for debate/change (eg the so called highest tax rate which wasn't high enough anway and was immediately reduced because of pressure from the wealthy, whilst 40% tax payers on just above average salaries have had to put up and shut up about that for years)? It's also obvious from the photo that fox hunting must cause even more disruption than any cycle rides that people in the Forest have been complaining about recently - at least bike riders don't get into your gardens, frighten you and attack domestic pets like hounds often seem to do!
The law was passed because the majority of the people in this country see hunting as "sport" as barbaric in this day and age - especially fox hunting with packs of hounds that tear apart a fox. We should not even be having the debate about whether the law will be repealed - why is it that a law that impacts mostly the wealthy seems to always be up for debate/change (eg the so called highest tax rate which wasn't high enough anway and was immediately reduced because of pressure from the wealthy, whilst 40% tax payers on just above average salaries have had to put up and shut up about that for years)? It's also obvious from the photo that fox hunting must cause even more disruption than any cycle rides that people in the Forest have been complaining about recently - at least bike riders don't get into your gardens, frighten you and attack domestic pets like hounds often seem to do! Poppy22

10:25am Sat 28 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

Poppy22 wrote:
The law was passed because the majority of the people in this country see hunting as "sport" as barbaric in this day and age - especially fox hunting with packs of hounds that tear apart a fox. We should not even be having the debate about whether the law will be repealed - why is it that a law that impacts mostly the wealthy seems to always be up for debate/change (eg the so called highest tax rate which wasn't high enough anway and was immediately reduced because of pressure from the wealthy, whilst 40% tax payers on just above average salaries have had to put up and shut up about that for years)? It's also obvious from the photo that fox hunting must cause even more disruption than any cycle rides that people in the Forest have been complaining about recently - at least bike riders don't get into your gardens, frighten you and attack domestic pets like hounds often seem to do!
A sensible post deserves a sensible answer. First, I don't hunt, don't even know anyone who hunts so what motivates me is the misguided class hatred and victimisation of rural life that is thinly disguised by a "pretend" love of foxes. The ban was brought in using the Parliament Act - a device almost never used but used here to force legislation through. Why? Nothing to do with the "people's wishes - there have been enough times when that could have been used and never was. Secondly proportionality - what about cruelty to rats and mice? Don't they deserve protection from poison? Why can't people just protect their cupboards better? (the argument used against chicken farmers). When you work out what is different the only real factor is the people doing it. Dying slowly of internal bleeding is still cruel isn't it? So where are the rodent rights extremists? How about fishing? If an angler tells you "It doesn't hurt the fish" you are talking to an idiot. The fish is fighting for its life - ripping its face and throat apart in an effort to get away - don't let an angler tell you the fish "knows" it is coarse...... So what is left? We cna park the barbaric and primitive halal and kosher slaughter largely because the same liberal left are too scared to challenge it, so lastly we come to fox hunting, which is now banned anway. THis idea that foxes run happy and free until they die peacefully of old age? In the wild, a lucky fox is killed by a car. THe rest die slowly and painfully, of disease or injury. Most dying wild foxes crawl into a ditch to be eaten alive by maggots or pecked by corvids. The average life expectancy of a wild fox is just 3 years and it wasn't changed at all by the small number killed by hunting. In that context ask yourself why Sabs, the RSPCA and other extremists still cannot stop baiting hunts that meet socially. It's because it was never about the fox and still isn't. THat's why I oppose the ban. We are all of us in a minority of some sort somewhere - that does not give others the right to ignore or persecute you. - the thugs who torment passive hunts are still scum and the last thing they need is vindication.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: The law was passed because the majority of the people in this country see hunting as "sport" as barbaric in this day and age - especially fox hunting with packs of hounds that tear apart a fox. We should not even be having the debate about whether the law will be repealed - why is it that a law that impacts mostly the wealthy seems to always be up for debate/change (eg the so called highest tax rate which wasn't high enough anway and was immediately reduced because of pressure from the wealthy, whilst 40% tax payers on just above average salaries have had to put up and shut up about that for years)? It's also obvious from the photo that fox hunting must cause even more disruption than any cycle rides that people in the Forest have been complaining about recently - at least bike riders don't get into your gardens, frighten you and attack domestic pets like hounds often seem to do![/p][/quote]A sensible post deserves a sensible answer. First, I don't hunt, don't even know anyone who hunts so what motivates me is the misguided class hatred and victimisation of rural life that is thinly disguised by a "pretend" love of foxes. The ban was brought in using the Parliament Act - a device almost never used but used here to force legislation through. Why? Nothing to do with the "people's wishes - there have been enough times when that could have been used and never was. Secondly proportionality - what about cruelty to rats and mice? Don't they deserve protection from poison? Why can't people just protect their cupboards better? (the argument used against chicken farmers). When you work out what is different the only real factor is the people doing it. Dying slowly of internal bleeding is still cruel isn't it? So where are the rodent rights extremists? How about fishing? If an angler tells you "It doesn't hurt the fish" you are talking to an idiot. The fish is fighting for its life - ripping its face and throat apart in an effort to get away - don't let an angler tell you the fish "knows" it is coarse...... So what is left? We cna park the barbaric and primitive halal and kosher slaughter largely because the same liberal left are too scared to challenge it, so lastly we come to fox hunting, which is now banned anway. THis idea that foxes run happy and free until they die peacefully of old age? In the wild, a lucky fox is killed by a car. THe rest die slowly and painfully, of disease or injury. Most dying wild foxes crawl into a ditch to be eaten alive by maggots or pecked by corvids. The average life expectancy of a wild fox is just 3 years and it wasn't changed at all by the small number killed by hunting. In that context ask yourself why Sabs, the RSPCA and other extremists still cannot stop baiting hunts that meet socially. It's because it was never about the fox and still isn't. THat's why I oppose the ban. We are all of us in a minority of some sort somewhere - that does not give others the right to ignore or persecute you. - the thugs who torment passive hunts are still scum and the last thing they need is vindication. The Wickham Man

11:56am Sat 28 Dec 13

andysaints007 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.
Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.
I never waste my time arguing with unspeakable, filthy, feculant, cuntitudinous, f*cktards like yourself. xx
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.[/p][/quote]Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.[/p][/quote]I never waste my time arguing with unspeakable, filthy, feculant, cuntitudinous, f*cktards like yourself. xx andysaints007

1:18pm Sat 28 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.
Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.
I never waste my time arguing with unspeakable, filthy, feculant, cuntitudinous, f*cktards like yourself. xx
What a spectacular way to crash and burn. Publicly exposing your lack of intellect then committing web suicide. i'm honoured by your gesture of submission.
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.[/p][/quote]Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.[/p][/quote]I never waste my time arguing with unspeakable, filthy, feculant, cuntitudinous, f*cktards like yourself. xx[/p][/quote]What a spectacular way to crash and burn. Publicly exposing your lack of intellect then committing web suicide. i'm honoured by your gesture of submission. The Wickham Man

4:59pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Solomon's Boot says...

Nothing as good as mass debating!
Nothing as good as mass debating! Solomon's Boot

11:43am Sun 29 Dec 13

andysaints007 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.
Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.
I never waste my time arguing with unspeakable, filthy, feculant, cuntitudinous, f*cktards like yourself. xx
What a spectacular way to crash and burn. Publicly exposing your lack of intellect then committing web suicide. i'm honoured by your gesture of submission.
Blimey!! Just when I thought you couldn't be any more boring zzzzzzzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: The Wickham Man really has to be the biggest plebb on here for a long, long time! Still it made me chuckle reading his inane drivel.[/p][/quote]Come on then, you tell me where I have stated anything inaccurate or not substantiated. You state an equal and opposite fact that you believe to be true in contradiction to mine and lets see how stupid they look.I bet you are one of these people on here who marks down posts not because they are wrong or poorly argued but just because you don't like what they say. Off you go - let's see you correct all the flaws.[/p][/quote]I never waste my time arguing with unspeakable, filthy, feculant, cuntitudinous, f*cktards like yourself. xx[/p][/quote]What a spectacular way to crash and burn. Publicly exposing your lack of intellect then committing web suicide. i'm honoured by your gesture of submission.[/p][/quote]Blimey!! Just when I thought you couldn't be any more boring zzzzzzzzzzz andysaints007

8:56pm Sun 29 Dec 13

roofspace says...

I think "The Wickham Man" is just sad and lonely, has no friends and this is the only way he can interact with the rest of humanity through the columns of a newspaper. One shouldn't mock the afflicted but he is so funny.......
I think "The Wickham Man" is just sad and lonely, has no friends and this is the only way he can interact with the rest of humanity through the columns of a newspaper. One shouldn't mock the afflicted but he is so funny....... roofspace

9:17pm Sun 29 Dec 13

geoff51 says...

No the Wickham man actually has courage in his convictions and refuses to bow down to the fluffy-wuffy foxy lovers and I respect him for taking a stand and supporting me and others who think that the hunting ban was a Socialist ploy to annoy the tory voters who they perceived were hunt supporters.
No the Wickham man actually has courage in his convictions and refuses to bow down to the fluffy-wuffy foxy lovers and I respect him for taking a stand and supporting me and others who think that the hunting ban was a Socialist ploy to annoy the tory voters who they perceived were hunt supporters. geoff51

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree