Conservatives could bring back hunting with dogs in Hampshire (From Daily Echo)

Shock horror, upper class right wing political party wants to bring back upper class right wing barbaric cruel "sport". Gives the chinless wonders something to do on bank holidays I suppose.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

There can never be any justification for hunting down and killing any wild animal by a pack of hounds purely for entertainment.

There will be outrage if the Tories press ahead with this and it will lose them votes.

And before anyone jumps on my back and criticises me, I was brought up in the country. Shot rabbits, pigeons and other vermin and still fish. We also had Jack Russells which were used to control rats in the yards and barns.

It is riding to hounds that I and many other 'country folk' find objectional.

One of benefits of sitting on the Opposition benches is that you can make promises that you don't have to keep. Once in power there is too full an agenda to deal with something this trivial when the country has so many more pressing problems.Until then, the 'countryside lobby' is kept on side and only disappointed when the election is over. How many unpopular laws have actually been repealed in the past?

I've no objection to the controlling of fox population - what I do object to is a bunch of upper class twits satisfying some primal blood **** by running them into the ground with dogs. Do it the civilised way - track them & shoot them with guns.

“I don’t engage in hunting but have always supported the right of people to do so.”

Hunting and eating what you kill is fine - hunting for fun is not acceptable.

I would have thought these elected representatives would have more important things to be planning than this.

It is a great fallacy that anti-hunt types are 'townies'.
I have lived near the New Forest all my life and spend much of my time in it; the pro-hunt people that i have met could be counted on two hands.
Hunting will be to David Cameron as the Poll Tax was to Margaret Thatcher.
He's a fool to pursue repealing the act as are Desmond Swayne and Julian Lewis for falling in line.
It might appease the rich but the average person does not wanting hunting with hounds returned...The well funded propaganda machine of the pro-hunt lobby can argue all they like..we all know its true!

Psychology my dear Watson - those that enjoy hunting and killing for sport or enjoy watching it are the ones who are the calibre of those who can, not only run the country, but can send men to War. Killing is the game. How many are bagged and more importantly enjoy the chase - Generals on horseback without much conscience but cry over the death of their dog. Personally, I call them sub-human its all a game - power over animals that can't fight back and that could be us. As far as I am concerned - Party Politics is a killing game whether business or wars its the chase that counts and a sense of POWER and control.

goard

Shoong wrote:
I've no objection to the controlling of fox population - what I do object to is a bunch of upper class twits satisfying some primal blood **** by running them into the ground with dogs. Do it the civilised way - track them & shoot them with guns.

Hear, hear! couldn't have put it any better myself! It's time we moved on from this... it's over and done with... we've moved on as a society (well I thought we had!).

Bring back hunting? I was not aware it ever went away. The stupid 'Third way compromise of Blair meant that is was banned in legislature not not in reality. The Police do not check what hunts were up to. They were out in force dishing out arrests and beatings to anti-hunt protesters in the dark Tory years. Lets hope all those who are contemplating voting for the toffs party next time to re-think it through.

You see, to vote for a Tory you vote for the Aristocracy of this Country....NOT.....f
or the working man.

The real Tories do not give a T@ss about the man in the street.

You only have to look at the breeding of the majority.

They cannot see the fuss about MPs expense's, cleaning moats and duck houses or asking to double an MP's salary.

Its hunting one minute....then its VAT to 20%......then its the slagging off of the NHS....

If you think a vote for Tories is going to offer a "new dawn" then i can tell you it will not.


Do you really believe that the upper class of Cameron or Osborne really cares about you or me. Or even Swayne or Lewis


If you do then THINK AGAIN

I am pro fishing and hunting with guns. I am not in favour of a bunch of toff sadists riding about the countryside outnumbering a defenceless animal and slaughtering it with dogs.
And then call it hunting? or even a sport?
The Tories are continuing to damage their election chances with things like this.

What possible defintion of the word 'cruelty' doesn't cover hunting for sport?
I certainly have no axe to grind with the upper class in general as the pro hunters might have you believe, but the minority that choose to hunt with dogs seem to me, to be grossly over-represented in the corridors of power on this matter.
I suspect any straw poll would see the pro hunters outnumbered 20 to 1

Bring back public hanging and cutting off the right hand for theft

well well you lot do surprise me.

""Desmond Swayne, MP for New Forest West, said it would allow for a free vote in the House of Commons in Government time.""
its not a free vote its part of the tory manifest, to bring back the hunt, even lo its not in the main part of there manifest, it's a sub-section of there manifest, so there fore will not be a free vote on it in the house of commons. so who is desmond swayne trying to hood wink.

hunting with pack of dogs is wrong, i would except hunting with one dog to be ok. other thing that was so wrong with the old pack of dogs hunt was the fact, the day before the hound master with a group of people use to block up exits, for the fox to escape. and they all ways failed to halt the hunt when a fox has entered some one private land and out side the hunt boundery IE people's gardens or on to crop and live stock farm land, and doing a lot off damage.

Could never see why foxhunting was banned in the first place.
Vermin and pests such as the fox should be destroyed, and if a few toffs get their jolly out out of it, double result.

hulla baloo wrote:
Could never see why foxhunting was banned in the first place.
Vermin and pests such as the fox should be destroyed, and if a few toffs get their jolly out out of it, double result.

fox hunting is not banned, just hunting with a pack of dogs is, you can still hunt with one dog, its been proven that hunting with one dog you get a cleaner kill, but hunting with a pack the animal thats got caught will suffer a longer death, because the dogs go into a frenzy when hunting in a pack.

Kill, kill, kill, is this what the human race is about - it is not just wild animals, its humans, how sick society is.

goard

Living in the countryside for
sixty plus years I have never
hunted.The problem is,foxes
do a terrible lot of damage,
they need to be controlled,
for a lot of people who live in the countryside who try to
raise chickens,ducks,etc,a
nd
sometimes even lambs foxes
are a real menace.It's no good saying they aren't just
because they look like pretty
little pets,they really are what nature made them,
ruthless killers.Hunting did
control them in a way that kept them on the move,that is no longer happening.
Hunting was never illegal,it did work in a way that the control we are supposed to have now doesn't. I never wanted to go hunting, but
respected the rights of others to pursue a totally
legal hobby/interest/pasti
me.
Do agree with Jammy Donut
though about hanging and the lopping off of hands of
thieves.

Jammy Donut wrote:
Bring back public hanging and cutting off the right hand for theft

Is there any point in hanging them and then cutting off a hand?

bumblysaint, new forest foxes dont tend to go after lambs, because sheep will attack a fox, you see a fox where lambs are, is because the fox is after the after birth or any still borns and not the lamb. a lamb can out run out emover fox very soon after birth. and the only reason a fox can kill a chicken is because they tend to be coup up, making it easy for the fox to kill. foxes tend to feed on carrion and the small maminals like rats, mice and voles ect, and its rare to see a fox take a live healthy adult rabbit.
now here's the real reason why the ruling class wants fox hunting back with packs of dogs, apart from its there personal blood sport. its not hunting that for sure. ( you hunt for the sake of food and you use all that you can from the kill ), any way back the reason why it all for the sake of game bird shoots, foxes will take eggs and very young chicks of game birds. that are on the ground in the wild. ringed pheasants mainly

Another reason not to vote Conservative then.

Propercynic wrote:
Another reason not to vote Conservative then.

And do you want to vote liebour, after the shambles they have created over the years?

hulla baloo wrote:

Propercynic wrote:
Another reason not to vote Conservative then.

And do you want to vote liebour, after the shambles they have created over the years?

nope but i will vote for the new party thats being set up, and part of it is the socialist party

Southy, you need to speak to a few farmers round here,
we're not all liars,we live here,work here,and see what happens,foxes do sometimes take lambs,it's a fact,wish it wasn't.

Shoong wrote:
I've no objection to the controlling of fox population - what I do object to is a bunch of upper class twits satisfying some primal blood **** by running them into the ground with dogs. Do it the civilised way - track them & shoot them with guns.

Isnt the conservative party the ''upper class'' party? as in representing the upper class and the middle class.... so only natural that they would want to bring back upper class sports. And civilised way? shooting them is no less civilised, nor is any way of hunting.... but... we kill cows, Pigs, fish, and many other animals.... does that make people evil? no!, hunting is a primal act, our ancestors hunted mammoths and sabre tooth tigers (if UKTV history is to be believed), not sure where the problem is.

The class war fantasies of some of the contributors would be funny if they weren't so sad. They obviously haven't examined hunting in any detail or they'd know the vast majority of hunt supporters are anything but "toffs", and if they haven't examined the subject closely enough to notice that, their opinions are worthless

Yawn, yawn, yawn. I cannot believe that these anti-hunt extremists are STILL all using the same "Anit-Hunting Letters for Idiots" guide book. For the uninitiated, let me explain - first, identify the hunting fraternity with a target rich for abuse - upper class twits and the "ruling class". No need to mention that 90% of hunt supporters are ordinary, working class people. That would only cloud the issue.
Next, associate them with a group of people universally detested by the general public - child abusers/murderers etc. This creates an image in the publics mind of general nastiness. No need to mention that hunt supporters are some of the most law-abiding people in the country and that anti-huunt activists as a rule have longer criminal records than they would care to mention. That would only cloud the issue.
Next, make sure that the public realise that hunt supporters also harm every other animal on the planet and are probably even responsible for global warming by their overt consumption of meat. No need to mention that most hunt supporters are passionate lovers of all forms of wildlife and know more about it the all of the anti-hunt anarchist extremists put together. That would only cloud the issue.
Finally, pretend to be from the countryside yourself. That makes you look unbiased and genuine in your hateful opinions and creates an air of reasonableness.
Please, please, please think of something new to say, and think of something that has a genuine, informed, reasonable and logical argument behind it. That is why the discriminatory, ill-informed, unreasonable and illogical Hunting Act is doomed to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Another of your favourite phrases I believe...

allways the optimist wrote:

Shoong wrote: I've no objection to the controlling of fox population - what I do object to is a bunch of upper class twits satisfying some primal blood **** by running them into the ground with dogs. Do it the civilised way - track them & shoot them with guns.

Isnt the conservative party the ''upper class'' party? as in representing the upper class and the middle class.... so only natural that they would want to bring back upper class sports. And civilised way? shooting them is no less civilised, nor is any way of hunting.... but... we kill cows, Pigs, fish, and many other animals.... does that make people evil? no!, hunting is a primal act, our ancestors hunted mammoths and sabre tooth tigers (if UKTV history is to be believed), not sure where the problem is.

OTO..A Hypothetical question for you.
Imagine you had a dog and the vet advised you that you had to have it put to sleep and he would have to charge you £50 to do it with an injection, or he would pay you £50 for your dog so that the hunt group he belonged to could let it loose and set the hounds on it for practice while he and all his friends chased after it on horseback really relishing the excitement that it would bring them, what would you choose?
Have a good think about that one.
The dog has to die and you will be quids in...wheres the problem?
Thats the crux of this issue!
I know that in reality this scenario would never happen but i think it illustrates what the problem is.

Ironically, every person (bar one) who i have known that is pro-hunting has a dog and treats its like their own child.
It's just a dog, a canine...just like the fox. What makes their pet dogs so much more 'special' than the fox?

If you need to kill a fox then you go lamping and shoot it. It's that simple.

Where and if absolutely necessary, foxes should be shot, not ripped to bits.

Fox hunting = the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

Propercynic wrote:
Another reason not to vote Conservative then.

And do you want to vote liebour, after the shambles they have created over the years?

nope but i will vote for the new party thats being set up, and part of it is the socialist party

Perhaps they could be hunted along with other associated idiots.

Agree with Hotel. Always amusing to read the ignorant prejudiced hypocritical narrow minded garbage spouted by bigots and idiots who have never seen a hunt but whose hatred of it is motivated not by reason or even by animal welfare but by hatred of a perceived (and largely imaginary) class of people they do not even know. I don't hunt but I do know that hunting is not the preserve of some mythical upper class but of a class of people who enjoy the excitement of a chase. It is should be obvious to anyone who bothers to think rationally that virtually none of the riders are anywhere near the hounds when the kill takes place - if they were motivated by barbarity there are easier and more certain ways to satisfy your cravings than riding to hounds month in month out without ever even seeing a fox most of the time. The prize for adding stupidity to hypocrisy goes to Burton Saint for whom watching a "working class" dog kill a rat is somehow fine whereas a "posh dog" killing a fox is murderous. No I don't understand the logic either. There is so much uninformed garbage in some of these posts. Nobody who eats meat (as I do) should try and take any moral high ground on the issue of animal cruelty. Food animals undergo a slow and terrifying final walk to their slaughter sliding in the excreta of the terrified creatures who went before them. just to put the meat on your plate - if animal slaughter is done vicarously it is still done for you so unless you are a vegan spare us the moral high ground. Iit is more cruel to trap or shoot a fox anyway because the death is slow and drawn out. And finally to the morons who think the tory party is the party of "toffs" - do you also think New labour is the party of oiks? Do you still think Harold MacMillan is prime minister as well? Do you think they all still wear top hats to the commons? Do me a favour.
I am indifferent to hunting but the ugly face of unintelligent uninformed bigotry on here from some posters is quite frightening.

hulla baloo wrote:

Propercynic wrote:
Another reason not to vote Conservative then.

And do you want to vote liebour, after the shambles they have created over the years?

LieBour?
And you advocate voting for CaMoron then?

Lone Ranger wrote:
You see, to vote for a Tory you vote for the Aristocracy of this Country....NOT.....f

or the working man.

The real Tories do not give a T@ss about the man in the street.

You only have to look at the breeding of the majority.

They cannot see the fuss about MPs expense's, cleaning moats and duck houses or asking to double an MP's salary.

Its hunting one minute....then its VAT to 20%......then its the slagging off of the NHS....

If you think a vote for Tories is going to offer a "new dawn" then i can tell you it will not.


Do you really believe that the upper class of Cameron or Osborne really cares about you or me. Or even Swayne or Lewis


If you do then THINK AGAIN

One of the worst things about working again is having to wait to respond to one-sided arguments, particularly from old sparring partner here.

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on hunting, as I suspect you don't either. You just jump on any topic to score political points. I think with hunting the concept of weighing the rights of the animal with the historic rights of individuals to practice hard fought freedoms is a difficult one. I would never feel the need to go hunting but I understand that people who always have, feel victimised by a law that deliberately targeted them. And this includes the working class people who's livelihoods depended upon the hunting industry and who your chums in the labour party claim to represent.

As for the rest of the rambling nonsense above, you disappoint me. Being such a big supporter of John Denham I would have thought it enormously risky for you to mention expenses. The 'man on the street' who you claim would not be represented by the Tories will also be repulsed at our local MP's expense claims of over £2000 for damproofing his bathroom and of £400 for a rug for his house. I am as appalled by duck houses and moats as the next man but your one sided view neglects to mention the wrongdoers in your party. Blears' £17,000 was highly questionable, Smith's husband watched bongo films at our expense and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed his designated 2nd home for his own benefit. Can you really defend these people but attack the others?

As you know I was formerly in the armed forces and I was appalled that after speaking out at this government's shameful betrayal of the forces the Labour spin machine decided to attack the integrity of the Chief of the General Staff. This was a disgusting and cynical attack on a man who has served this country with distinction. Fortunately this attack was unfounded as Gen Dannatt's expense claims were dwarfed in comparison to Fat Bob Ainsworth's.

Finally, the most telling statistic in my view and the one that should be taken into account by anyone who thinks that Labour look out for the man on the street... NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED. If the man on the street wants to be unemployed then he should join Lone Ranger and vote for Labour.

Sense of Southampton said

'Finally, the most telling statistic in my view and the one that should be taken into account by anyone who thinks that Labour look out for the man on the street... NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED. If the man on the street wants to be unemployed then he should join Lone Ranger and vote for Labour.'

When Callaghan was defeated in 1979 Thatchers govenment saw unemployment increase and inflation shoot through the roof.

However Labour leaves the economy, and Im no New Labour fan, the Tories make it considerably worse.
Dont expect CaMoron to sort things out. Even Osborne says the Tory Party will be hated when it comes into power.

Interesting statistic IW61 but I am sure you would agree that the impact of a previous administration's policies are borne by the succeeding administration, and it works both ways. The two most incompetent administrations since the war have been the Callaghan Government in 79 and the Major Government in 97 and both handed on problems for the succeeding administrations, but in truth they all do.

bumblysaint wrote:
Southy, you need to speak to a few farmers round here,
we're not all liars,we live here,work here,and see what happens,foxes do sometimes take lambs,it's a fact,wish it wasn't.

i dont need to bumbly, i know far few in somerset, and a few more around here, a fox will not risk getting hurt, thats why it stays away from sheep and there lamb, a sheep will even attack a person at lambing time, if it dont know that person, like one did to me, while i was helping to set up a silo for the farmer, and when you kill a fox another will move in straight away, and the only time you see a fox with a lamb is because it all ready dead or to sickly to survive farmers know foxes dont threaten there lively hoods they do more good than harm like eating carrion, and keeping the chance off disease getting into there live stock, except with coup up birds, and thats normaly the problem of the person not knowing how to keep a fox out of the coup and the bird run. companys like black/more/vale/vall
ey, webbs and lloyd farms dont have problems with foxes and they keep thousands off chickens, not even with there free range stock get killed by a fox.
so if your going to kill foxes then it should be done by the gun, and by some one who knows what they are doing, and when you do kill any wild animal you should use every bit that you can and waste very little.
i heard more complaints from farmers about the fox hunt that uses packs of dogs and on horse back, and the damage that they do to live stock and crops, than i have about a foxes and the damage that they have cause, and the biggest problem with framers they cant do nothing about it because they rent farm land of a big estate and very few farmer own there own land. and the ones that do own there own land do not allow any fox hunt on to there farm land.

Take a breath Southy. Are there many vicious sheep in Redbridge in Southampton then? You try to sound like you know farmers! What, in Redbrigde. Don't be a moron. Your an anti just full of rubbish make believe. Ever watch Todhunter and the fox when the lakes sheep farmers drive round each mornig picking up lambs with their heads ripped off by foxes? Get the vid on the internet,. Oh look Southy, proof! What about the DVD "the hunt" which followed welsh sheep farmers and they did a similar count of dead lambs from fox attacks! Before you write some old rubbish, please look up the fact! Hope those vicious Redbridge heep don't attack you, moron!

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Interesting statistic IW61 but I am sure you would agree that the impact of a previous administration's policies are borne by the succeeding administration, and it works both ways. The two most incompetent administrations since the war have been the Callaghan Government in 79 and the Major Government in 97 and both handed on problems for the succeeding administrations, but in truth they all do.

Thanks for your comment Andy. Therefore why do you promote the Tories? Believe me I'm no fan of Brown but CaMoron has yet to explain a policy and all he and his party are doing are thriving on the discontent with Labour.Good for their careers I'm sure but we want lasting change and both offer neither.

newforesttraillayer wrote:
Take a breath Southy. Are there many vicious sheep in Redbridge in Southampton then? You try to sound like you know farmers! What, in Redbrigde. Don't be a moron. Your an anti just full of rubbish make believe. Ever watch Todhunter and the fox when the lakes sheep farmers drive round each mornig picking up lambs with their heads ripped off by foxes? Get the vid on the internet,. Oh look Southy, proof! What about the DVD "the hunt" which followed welsh sheep farmers and they did a similar count of dead lambs from fox attacks! Before you write some old rubbish, please look up the fact! Hope those vicious Redbridge heep don't attack you, moron!

Thats life mate.

Get a gun and shoot foxes.Employ game wardens. Its cheaper. Why get a load of dressed up toffs on horse back, trying to relive 'merrie olde england'?

newforesttraillayer wrote:
Take a breath Southy. Are there many vicious sheep in Redbridge in Southampton then? You try to sound like you know farmers! What, in Redbrigde. Don't be a moron. Your an anti just full of rubbish make believe. Ever watch Todhunter and the fox when the lakes sheep farmers drive round each mornig picking up lambs with their heads ripped off by foxes? Get the vid on the internet,. Oh look Southy, proof! What about the DVD "the hunt" which followed welsh sheep farmers and they did a similar count of dead lambs from fox attacks! Before you write some old rubbish, please look up the fact! Hope those vicious Redbridge heep don't attack you, moron!

you cant remember how rebridge was back in the late 50's to the very early 60's. when redbridge use to come under romsey and not southampton,
i only had to cross the road and there was a farm less than 50 yards and i was in a farmers field, millbrook estate was still being built,
and yes i do know a lot of farmers, even lo the farms in redbridge have all but one nearly gone. plus it should of rang a bell in that head of yours when i said somerset whitch is one of the key southern england area for sheep. i spent a few years down there working, a fox is very unlikey to attack another animal that is the same size or bigger than it self, and only will do so if cornered. its main live prey is small pray the size of a rat and a rabbit will be the biggest animal it will hunt, but this is rare and a fox will really need to very hungry to go after a rabbit, unless it is ill, like if the rabbit got mixy. and for a fox to eat a lamb, then that lamb was all ready dead, or it was dieing. a lamb once up on its feet is to fast and can twist and turn and jump faster than a fox and it would take a pack dog to catch a lamb, a fox dont hunt in pack, it hunts alone. and the only time you see more than one fox together is at breeding time, or when a vixen has cubs.
do you think i am going to belive a dvd that was done by the country blood sports lot.

newforesttraillayer, new fores i give you another clue that you being listen and watching BS is the fact that foxes are scared of domestic cats. and run a mile when one hisses at them.

interesting andy i would off said they been incompetent since 1979, and all have centred there self for there own self need and greed and said sod the general public.

Maybe Southy but don't you think Blair in '97 was the very thing that Britain needed, a new start, a new sense of purpose, new policies etc etc and until the millenium dome fiasco I think the country all felt a sense of release and optimism - but it just shows that all political careers end in conflict and failure. Who would have thought that would happen to Blair in 1998? I think labour's first term was a good term. I voted labour in 97 and 2001, but I voted Tory in 2005 and I will do so again in 2010. I hope people aren't afraid to vote for competence rather than dogma.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Maybe Southy but don't you think Blair in '97 was the very thing that Britain needed, a new start, a new sense of purpose, new policies etc etc and until the millenium dome fiasco I think the country all felt a sense of release and optimism - but it just shows that all political careers end in conflict and failure. Who would have thought that would happen to Blair in 1998? I think labour's first term was a good term. I voted labour in 97 and 2001, but I voted Tory in 2005 and I will do so again in 2010. I hope people aren't afraid to vote for competence rather than dogma.

Andy.
then it seems you have learnt nothing, understood nothing.

andy the last time i voted was in 1997 i gave blair a chance to prove him self, and he did't about 3 years in to his office i said to my dad when he was a live the labour party no longer repersent the ordinary man, they are more about capitalist than socialism, and about a mth before he died my dad came to me and said you where right about the labour party, they are no longer a socialist party but a capitalist party, when maggie made it law how the unions could vote on a party and stop its sub partys like the socialist from voting for its mp's and leaders, the wrong people got control of the labour party, it was not long after my dad died that you started to see the laabour party start breaking up with the socialist party, socialist working party, workers liberty party all breaking away from the labour party and if that was not enough the main part of the party started to break away the socialist labour party, and now the unions are breaking away from the labour party, those inner groups are now reforming under a new party with the help of the Rmt Gmb unison unions and the cwnp, so if any one wants a fresh change from the last 30 years of capitalism and wants to see a true soclist party to vote for, they will be ready come may next year, some parts are all there ready for the voting if the general election comes this year, whitch some of think it will be. oct will tell us if its this year or may next year.

Iw61 wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: Maybe Southy but don't you think Blair in '97 was the very thing that Britain needed, a new start, a new sense of purpose, new policies etc etc and until the millenium dome fiasco I think the country all felt a sense of release and optimism - but it just shows that all political careers end in conflict and failure. Who would have thought that would happen to Blair in 1998? I think labour's first term was a good term. I voted labour in 97 and 2001, but I voted Tory in 2005 and I will do so again in 2010. I hope people aren't afraid to vote for competence rather than dogma.

Andy. then it seems you have learnt nothing, understood nothing.

I am on Andy's side on this one, and so are the foxes.

Brite Spark, Stubbington, there's a lot of socialism in andy just that he dont relise it yet. and he may never do, a lot of people dont relise it.
the foxes are on any one side that will see them stay alive, so i think you can cross capitalism for them straight away.

No surprise here - the Tories would bring back the 19th century if they could!

Disgusting, wrong and barbaric. It will never make a comeback. Even the tories are not that stupid.

Northamboy wrote:
Disgusting, wrong and barbaric. It will never make a comeback. Even the tories are not that stupid.

ummm yes they are that stupid, they like to look, and go back in time, they never look foreward into the future.

If "Dr" Lewis is reading this he should appreciate that by no means all of his natural voter base would support any Tory plan to re-introduce pack hunting.

I am forest born and bred and a "natural tory", but if such plans (as opposed to a free vote) go in the Conservative manifesto, then I will vote LibDem.

The hunting of an intelligent animal to death for human enjoyment (under the guise of control) has no place in the 21st century - period. All the dire warnings that came from the hunting lobby before the ban have proved to be just a lot of hot air and in any event economic reasons are hardly a justifiction for cruelty - otherwise I would kill and skin every cat that comes onto my land and sell the pelts!

southy wrote:

Northamboy wrote:
Disgusting, wrong and barbaric. It will never make a comeback. Even the tories are not that stupid.

ummm yes they are that stupid, they like to look, and go back in time, they never look foreward into the future.

This post is from someone who yearns for a return of good old fashioned socialism, and he calls the Torys stupid. Priceless.

senseofsouthampton wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote: You see, to vote for a Tory you vote for the Aristocracy of this Country....NOT.....f or the working man. The real Tories do not give a T@ss about the man in the street. You only have to look at the breeding of the majority. They cannot see the fuss about MPs expense's, cleaning moats and duck houses or asking to double an MP's salary. Its hunting one minute....then its VAT to 20%......then its the slagging off of the NHS.... If you think a vote for Tories is going to offer a "new dawn" then i can tell you it will not. Do you really believe that the upper class of Cameron or Osborne really cares about you or me. Or even Swayne or Lewis If you do then THINK AGAIN

One of the worst things about working again is having to wait to respond to one-sided arguments, particularly from old sparring partner here. I honestly don't have much of an opinion on hunting, as I suspect you don't either. You just jump on any topic to score political points. I think with hunting the concept of weighing the rights of the animal with the historic rights of individuals to practice hard fought freedoms is a difficult one. I would never feel the need to go hunting but I understand that people who always have, feel victimised by a law that deliberately targeted them. And this includes the working class people who's livelihoods depended upon the hunting industry and who your chums in the labour party claim to represent. As for the rest of the rambling nonsense above, you disappoint me. Being such a big supporter of John Denham I would have thought it enormously risky for you to mention expenses. The 'man on the street' who you claim would not be represented by the Tories will also be repulsed at our local MP's expense claims of over £2000 for damproofing his bathroom and of £400 for a rug for his house. I am as appalled by duck houses and moats as the next man but your one sided view neglects to mention the wrongdoers in your party. Blears' £17,000 was highly questionable, Smith's husband watched bongo films at our expense and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed his designated 2nd home for his own benefit. Can you really defend these people but attack the others? As you know I was formerly in the armed forces and I was appalled that after speaking out at this government's shameful betrayal of the forces the Labour spin machine decided to attack the integrity of the Chief of the General Staff. This was a disgusting and cynical attack on a man who has served this country with distinction. Fortunately this attack was unfounded as Gen Dannatt's expense claims were dwarfed in comparison to Fat Bob Ainsworth's. Finally, the most telling statistic in my view and the one that should be taken into account by anyone who thinks that Labour look out for the man on the street... NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED. If the man on the street wants to be unemployed then he should join Lone Ranger and vote for Labour.

Nice to have you back.........
But you see once again you attack me and my comments.
The dissapointing thing is .....if i didnt post my views you wouldn't bother commenting.

Go on, post something that does not involve me and my politics.

Your Comment "NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED"

Well Labour have not left Office yet.

But you have to remember, or even consider, that these WORLD events are unprecidented. At least Labour did attempt to do something. Reduce VAT, Car trade in, mortgage payment assistance, most of which was condemmend on this site and by your party


Anyway whats that got to do with fox hunting.......well nothing.........but at least you can see that some things never change

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

southy wrote:

Northamboy wrote:
Disgusting, wrong and barbaric. It will never make a comeback. Even the tories are not that stupid.

ummm yes they are that stupid, they like to look, and go back in time, they never look foreward into the future.

This post is from someone who yearns for a return of good old fashioned socialism, and he calls the Torys stupid. Priceless.

i only say go back to the 1979 and carry on from there, and go foreward and iron out the small kinks in the system, unlike the torys that took us back to 1920's, and have the same problems but only bigger and gets bigger has time go's by, and still going back ward and not foreward,
capitalism is dieing there's no place for it in the future world, the only way it can carry on is if we have mores wars on the same scale has WWII. and if capitalism carry on it will not be just more bigger wars, it will also mean bigger/higher unemployment, poverty, homeless, recessions, depressions, under paid, and human suffering and misery, and has technology improves there will be more and more have nots and less and less of those that have, and sooner or later it get to that stage where you will not be seeing a socialist world but a communist world, and socialism is the new one on the block, so it cant be called old fashion, old fashion can only apply to capitalism. priceless an't it

You're a Keynsian aren't you Southy? I reckon Keynes would have advocated massive capital spending on infrastructure projects to get the country out of recession - like Attlee's government did in 1946-50. But if we did that today - it would just attract in hundreds of thousands of economic migrants from the enlarged EU which we would be powerless to stop so it can't be done as it would leave us Britain worse than before. If we had yet another 500,000 workers plus their families - the welfare state would finally collapse completely - our hospitals would resemble something in a third world war zone, our schools would collapse under the strain of trying to teach in several languages at once....benefits would leach every penny out of the revenue before it ever reached the police, roads, railways, and our clocal councils.
So. Apart from leave the EU what else can we do?

Lone Ranger wrote:

senseofsouthampton wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote: You see, to vote for a Tory you vote for the Aristocracy of this Country....NOT.....f or the working man. The real Tories do not give a T@ss about the man in the street. You only have to look at the breeding of the majority. They cannot see the fuss about MPs expense's, cleaning moats and duck houses or asking to double an MP's salary. Its hunting one minute....then its VAT to 20%......then its the slagging off of the NHS.... If you think a vote for Tories is going to offer a "new dawn" then i can tell you it will not. Do you really believe that the upper class of Cameron or Osborne really cares about you or me. Or even Swayne or Lewis If you do then THINK AGAIN

One of the worst things about working again is having to wait to respond to one-sided arguments, particularly from old sparring partner here. I honestly don't have much of an opinion on hunting, as I suspect you don't either. You just jump on any topic to score political points. I think with hunting the concept of weighing the rights of the animal with the historic rights of individuals to practice hard fought freedoms is a difficult one. I would never feel the need to go hunting but I understand that people who always have, feel victimised by a law that deliberately targeted them. And this includes the working class people who's livelihoods depended upon the hunting industry and who your chums in the labour party claim to represent. As for the rest of the rambling nonsense above, you disappoint me. Being such a big supporter of John Denham I would have thought it enormously risky for you to mention expenses. The 'man on the street' who you claim would not be represented by the Tories will also be repulsed at our local MP's expense claims of over £2000 for damproofing his bathroom and of £400 for a rug for his house. I am as appalled by duck houses and moats as the next man but your one sided view neglects to mention the wrongdoers in your party. Blears' £17,000 was highly questionable, Smith's husband watched bongo films at our expense and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed his designated 2nd home for his own benefit. Can you really defend these people but attack the others? As you know I was formerly in the armed forces and I was appalled that after speaking out at this government's shameful betrayal of the forces the Labour spin machine decided to attack the integrity of the Chief of the General Staff. This was a disgusting and cynical attack on a man who has served this country with distinction. Fortunately this attack was unfounded as Gen Dannatt's expense claims were dwarfed in comparison to Fat Bob Ainsworth's. Finally, the most telling statistic in my view and the one that should be taken into account by anyone who thinks that Labour look out for the man on the street... NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED. If the man on the street wants to be unemployed then he should join Lone Ranger and vote for Labour.

Nice to have you back.........
But you see once again you attack me and my comments.
The dissapointing thing is .....if i didnt post my views you wouldn't bother commenting.

Go on, post something that does not involve me and my politics.

Your Comment "NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED"

Well Labour have not left Office yet.

But you have to remember, or even consider, that these WORLD events are unprecidented. At least Labour did attempt to do something. Reduce VAT, Car trade in, mortgage payment assistance, most of which was condemmend on this site and by your party


Anyway whats that got to do with fox hunting.......well nothing.........but at least you can see that some things never change

I'll post something that doesn't mention your politics if you ever post something that doesn't either mindlessly attack the Tories or mindlessly back John Denham. I am merely trying to provide some balance. I detail my views on fox hunting above.

Your backing of labour's response to the credit crunch amuses me, can you honestly say that you have noticed more money in your back pocket as a result of the VAT cut? That has made no difference other than to swell the massive level of public debt. Your mob that you tirelessly defend ran a budget deficit during a period of sustained economic growth, something that an a-level economics student would struggle to justify. They are now jeopardising the country's future by failing to do anything radical to address the massive problem of debt facing the public sector, leaving all the unpopular decisions until after the next General Election in the knowledge they will not have to make them. Political opportunitism of the very worst kind; you back this whilst all the while the lack of direction is having an impact on people's lives. Why have France and Germany already left recession? Because they don't have the reckless, debt hungry government that we do.

No response on the expense claims of your lot which are equally shameful? Thought not.

andy thats the first thing that need to be sorted out, do what the labour party promise a vote on europe on weather we stay in or get out, and its only the socialist party that are willing to give that. choice, also there need to be a major change in the house of lords, they need to be elected in, again only the socialist are willing to do this, some else the labour party promise, we know the torys dont want to change any thing in those 2 areas because they benefit to much out of it, there are things that can be done under a socilist government that will not be done under a tory government, its like camron wants to do away with the expensive sheet, this is a good thing but what he holding back on is what he will replace it with, socialist will just do away with it, there is no need to make any claims, they get more than enough money has it is, remember m.thatcher said she will freeze mp's wages that she did do, but she bought in the expensive sheet to compensate the lost of money, and its all ways been abuse right from the word go,
please remember andy back then in 1945/7 we had just come out of a major war and the country was broke it owed the usa billions. thats why he went for a loan. and why wont the labour and tory bring in the people charter, i tell you why its because it will give you more rights, freedom and a bigger say in things, some else the socialist will bring in, some thing that no capitalist wants you to have,

senseofsouthampton wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

senseofsouthampton wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote: You see, to vote for a Tory you vote for the Aristocracy of this Country....NOT.....f or the working man. The real Tories do not give a T@ss about the man in the street. You only have to look at the breeding of the majority. They cannot see the fuss about MPs expense's, cleaning moats and duck houses or asking to double an MP's salary. Its hunting one minute....then its VAT to 20%......then its the slagging off of the NHS.... If you think a vote for Tories is going to offer a "new dawn" then i can tell you it will not. Do you really believe that the upper class of Cameron or Osborne really cares about you or me. Or even Swayne or Lewis If you do then THINK AGAIN

One of the worst things about working again is having to wait to respond to one-sided arguments, particularly from old sparring partner here. I honestly don't have much of an opinion on hunting, as I suspect you don't either. You just jump on any topic to score political points. I think with hunting the concept of weighing the rights of the animal with the historic rights of individuals to practice hard fought freedoms is a difficult one. I would never feel the need to go hunting but I understand that people who always have, feel victimised by a law that deliberately targeted them. And this includes the working class people who's livelihoods depended upon the hunting industry and who your chums in the labour party claim to represent. As for the rest of the rambling nonsense above, you disappoint me. Being such a big supporter of John Denham I would have thought it enormously risky for you to mention expenses. The 'man on the street' who you claim would not be represented by the Tories will also be repulsed at our local MP's expense claims of over £2000 for damproofing his bathroom and of £400 for a rug for his house. I am as appalled by duck houses and moats as the next man but your one sided view neglects to mention the wrongdoers in your party. Blears' £17,000 was highly questionable, Smith's husband watched bongo films at our expense and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed his designated 2nd home for his own benefit. Can you really defend these people but attack the others? As you know I was formerly in the armed forces and I was appalled that after speaking out at this government's shameful betrayal of the forces the Labour spin machine decided to attack the integrity of the Chief of the General Staff. This was a disgusting and cynical attack on a man who has served this country with distinction. Fortunately this attack was unfounded as Gen Dannatt's expense claims were dwarfed in comparison to Fat Bob Ainsworth's. Finally, the most telling statistic in my view and the one that should be taken into account by anyone who thinks that Labour look out for the man on the street... NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED. If the man on the street wants to be unemployed then he should join Lone Ranger and vote for Labour.

Nice to have you back......... But you see once again you attack me and my comments. The dissapointing thing is .....if i didnt post my views you wouldn't bother commenting. Go on, post something that does not involve me and my politics. Your Comment "NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVER LEFT OFFICE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT LOWER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED" Well Labour have not left Office yet. But you have to remember, or even consider, that these WORLD events are unprecidented. At least Labour did attempt to do something. Reduce VAT, Car trade in, mortgage payment assistance, most of which was condemmend on this site and by your party Anyway whats that got to do with fox hunting.......well nothing.........but at least you can see that some things never change

I'll post something that doesn't mention your politics if you ever post something that doesn't either mindlessly attack the Tories or mindlessly back John Denham. I am merely trying to provide some balance. I detail my views on fox hunting above. Your backing of labour's response to the credit crunch amuses me, can you honestly say that you have noticed more money in your back pocket as a result of the VAT cut? That has made no difference other than to swell the massive level of public debt. Your mob that you tirelessly defend ran a budget deficit during a period of sustained economic growth, something that an a-level economics student would struggle to justify. They are now jeopardising the country's future by failing to do anything radical to address the massive problem of debt facing the public sector, leaving all the unpopular decisions until after the next General Election in the knowledge they will not have to make them. Political opportunitism of the very worst kind; you back this whilst all the while the lack of direction is having an impact on people's lives. Why have France and Germany already left recession? Because they don't have the reckless, debt hungry government that we do. No response on the expense claims of your lot which are equally shameful? Thought not.

Now that you are working you obviously dont have time to read all of my posts re:- a few good things local Tories have done...........but i did notice yours on Denham........your very own post...well done. The main body of your post is a jaundiced view which somewhat surprises me. You mention the reduction in VAT which has helped even though it does not put thousands in your back pocket. So why does the retail industry want it maintained further than the end of the year if its not working ?
Why have France and Germany come out of recession earlier...simple...t
hey do not have the burden of such a large banking industry. As regards the expense claims..if you had read my previous posts you would have seen that i was critical of all parties MP's. This is TOTALLY unlike you. You seem to only critices me for my views and apart from the Denham piece which has been aired on here befor your contribution once again is ZERO.

PS..hope the jobs going well.